Timeline for Refused access to make changes directly to the live site
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 25, 2022 at 10:17 | comment | added | Eric Nolan | Someone mentioned this in a comment to another answer and I thought it was relevant to your SoD paragraph. Apart from allowing developers to promote malicious code a very likely possibility is that a (possibly junior) developer realises there is a problem in some of their code and they decide to sneak a fix in to production without telling anyone. Any impact of the error is swept under the carpet and no proper investigation is done. That might sound good to the dev who thinks they are going to get in trouble (although in a decent company they wouldn't) but it's bad for the company. | |
| Oct 1, 2018 at 3:43 | history | edited | Anthony | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Added further details on a secure audit log and details on CIA violations given as examples
|
| Aug 28, 2018 at 3:24 | history | edited | Anthony | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 120 characters in body
|
| Dec 29, 2017 at 20:06 | history | edited | Anthony | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Added links to consequences if the senior went by the OPs suggestions. Explained more about how the actions of the senior protects the OP
|
| Jan 16, 2017 at 4:46 | history | edited | Anthony | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Defined the characteristics of a secure audit log
|
| Jan 7, 2017 at 1:33 | history | edited | Anthony | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Edited points into numbered list for readability
|
| Nov 24, 2016 at 1:07 | history | edited | Anthony | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 7 characters in body
|
| Nov 24, 2016 at 1:00 | history | answered | Anthony | CC BY-SA 3.0 |