Once again, I have knocked off a series of posts for a new white paper. The title is “Understanding and Selecting a File Activity Monitoring Solution”. Although there are only a few vendors in the market, this is a technology I have been waiting a few years for, and I think it’s pretty useful.
There are basically two sides to it:
- Entitlement management: Collecting all user privileges in monitored file repositories, linking into your directory servers, and giving you a highly simplified process for cleaning up all the messes and managing things better when moving forward.
- Activity monitoring: Full activity monitoring for all your file repositories in scope… including alerting for policy violations.
It’s pretty cool stuff – imagine setting a policy to alert you any time someone copies an entire directory off the server instead of a single file. Or copying 30 files in a day, when they normally only open 1 or 2. And that’s just scratching the surface of the potential.
The links to all the posts are below, and I could use any feedback you have before we convert this puppy to a paper and post it.
(If you are seeing this in RSS, you will have to click the post to see all the links, because I’m too lazy to add them in manually).
Reader interactions
One Reply to “File Activity Monitoring Series Complete (Index)”
I’m trying to understand how FAM is different than:
1. Windows Media Connect
2. UPnP
3. DLNA
Particularly with respect to activity monitoring, is there a reason each of those three systems/frameworks could not be used to achieve the same benefits as FAM.
You mention several times in your posts that FAM is new and/or recent. Do you believe, for example, that the ability to monitor file activity (including receiving alerts and being able to respond in real-time) didn’t exist prior to 2007?
Thanks in advance for your explanation and clarification!