Seeking Input: CCI-001459 Remediation - Temp Account Termination
Shawn Wells
shawn at redhat.com
Wed Apr 25 22:32:02 UTC 2012
Agreed. I'll use that value unless someone screams.
-Shawn
On 4/25/12 3:43 PM, Joe Wulf wrote:
> Shawn,
>
> 90 days seems like a reasonable number.
>
> R,
> -Joe
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Shawn Wells <shawn at redhat.com>
> *To:* scap-security-guide at lists.fedorahosted.org
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 25, 2012 3:18 PM
> *Subject:* Seeking Input: CCI-001459 Remediation - Temp Account
> Termination
>
> Hey Guys,
>
> CCI-001459 requires that temp accounts be terminated after a
> organizationally defined period of time. Right now we don't have a
> check/control that implements that.
>
> I'd like to add prose that recommends that -ALL- accounts be
> locked after 60 (or 90... or 120..) days of inactivity. This
> would allow us to automatically meet CCI-001459 and enforces that
> inactive accounts should (eventually and automatically) be frozen.
>
> Thoughts? My thinking is that 90 days of inactivity is a good
> number.
>
> -Shawn
> _______________________________________________
> scap-security-guide mailing list
> scap-security-guide at lists.fedorahosted.org
> <mailto:scap-security-guide at lists.fedorahosted.org>
> https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/scap-security-guide
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/pipermail/scap-security-guide/attachments/20120425/b836e291/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the scap-security-guide
mailing list