Should void user IDs be preserved in an audit history?
We have been instructed in my company to never delete any ID, even if created mistakenly. By doing so, we preserve an audit history, should that ID be required in the future. This company is the only one known to me to take such an action. Is this a safe and/or recommended practice?

    Requires Free Membership to View

    SearchSecurity.com members gain immediate and unlimited access to breaking industry news, virus alerts, new hacker threats, highly focused security newsletters, and more -- all at no cost. Join me on SearchSecurity.com today!

    Michael S. Mimoso, Editorial Director

    By submitting your registration information to SearchSecurity.com you agree to receive email communications from TechTarget and TechTarget partners. We encourage you to read our Privacy Policy which contains important disclosures about how we collect and use your registration and other information. If you reside outside of the United States, by submitting this registration information you consent to having your personal data transferred to and processed in the United States. Your use of SearchSecurity.com is governed by our Terms of Use. You may contact us at webmaster@TechTarget.com.

Keeping a void user ID isn't a recommended practice. It doesn't matter whether the user ID is of a long-gone employee, created mistakenly or used solely for test purposes. Any and all dormant user IDs should be promptly removed from your system.

This is not only an information security best practice, but it may also be required for regulatory compliance.

Let's first deal with the information security side of the issue. Inactive user IDs can come back and haunt you in the form of vengeful system access by former users. An ex-employee is considered an insider because his or her user ID may still be active, meaning it's still possible to access your systems. A former employee who leaves on bad terms may be even more likely to wreak havoc on your network than a current employee, but instead of showing up in your logs as a hostile intruder, the attacker will merely be listed among the current users.

Keeping old user IDs active for auditing purposes is also foolish. Access management systems like Active Directory (AD) can be used for tracking and logging historic activity of a user ID without having to keep an account active. There are also forensics tools that do the same.

As for compliance, regulations like Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) all require regular auditing of access controls and reporting of active accounts. Auditors and regulators won't be happy if they find stale, mistaken or otherwise extraneous user IDs that are not attached to current employees when combing through your reports.

So what you describe, besides not being a best practice, could also land your company into a lot of regulatory trouble.

For more information:

  • Visit SearchSecurity.com's Identity and Access Management Security School to learn how to establish and maintain an effective plan for monitoring user access.
  • Learn the most effective methods for delivering an access control strategy to executive management.
  • This was first published in June 2007