I don't think they want to help me

July 10, 2006 7:26 PM

network management filter: I'm working for a local government education department. My team is meant to be maintaining/improving several large websites. The IT support people refuse to install a web browser that isn't IE 6, citing network security as the reason.... are their fears reasonable?

One of the replies I got for my request for the installation of one other internet browser:

I have again spoken to Xxx Xxxx today about the problem which is being presented. Xxx has advised that as we currently have a working and maintainable internet explorer, at this stage would not go down the path of testing a new product due to the fact they do not have the resources to maintain keeping the product up to date and working on the xxx environment. Xxx did however advise that Netscape has been tested and approved for the govt COE and should this suit your requirement, we can arrange a quote for the cost of the licence. I am unsure if using alternate internet explorers will be an option as we roll over to the XP SOE,

please note that the Netscape installation will not be configured to be able to connect to the internet. Is it really such an ordeal to configure a web browser to run on a network? Are other browsers inherently less "secure" than MSIE? Cost of the licence... wtf? Is what I'm asking for unreasonable?

posted by Tixylix to computers & internet (23 comments total)

This sounds insane and illogical. I'm particularly worried about the use of the term "alternate internet explorers." I'm assuming they mean alternate browser software, but for an IT department to use that kind of terminology . . . it doesn't really bode well for their competence in general.

Internet Explorer has a really bad track record as far as security goes for (what I believe to be) two primary reasons: one, Microsoft opened up a huge avenue of attack when they integrated it so closely with the operating system proper and two, its installed by default on every Windows machine, meaning that there is a lot of interested in finding vulnerabilities simply because it is so widespread.

As for the policy and such, the IT department can make whatever rules it wants, so long as the executives they report to support those rules, and there is some logic behind allowing only one browser on company machines. Why they decided that one browser should be IE is beyond me, given its track record. It is easier to say "you have to use Internet Explorer forever and ever, amen" than it is to deal with a bunch of machines with a bunch of different browsers, all with different versions, but to not allow something like Firefox or Netscape on a few select machines per user requests strikes me as kind of nuts.
posted by mmcg at 7:37 PM on July 10, 2006

It sounds like they have a certain process that they are required to follow to certify any new software that runs on your organization's computers. Knowing the government it's probably onerous and tasked to those who could care less.

To get around that is a political or education issue, not a technical one. You gotta butter someone up or get someone to intercede on your behalf.
posted by voidcontext at 7:38 PM on July 10, 2006

It's a CYA situation, IMO. If a piece of software isn't on the "approved" list, then whoever OKs its installation is going to get the blame if it blows up. Why would they want to take that chance when they have a bureaucracy to hide behind?

What functionality is missing from IE that you need to get your job done?
posted by Leon at 7:39 PM on July 10, 2006

Also, you could try running a portable firefox off a usb drive on the sly. Depends if that would be risky to be caught doing.
posted by voidcontext at 7:39 PM on July 10, 2006

Leon - I'd guess that the original poster is concerned about how the page renders in Firefox. That's around 5% of the possible users of the site that need to be looked after.
posted by voidcontext at 7:44 PM on July 10, 2006

do they know that it's free? (it is free, right?)
and isn't firefox based on netscape, in some way? do they know that?
posted by amethysts at 7:48 PM on July 10, 2006

voidcontext: yeah, I see that now. In which case, OP should have every possible browser available, not just Mozilla.

Ok, the chances are the network has a DMZ - it's probably where visiting laptops get shunted so they can't mess with the regular PCs.

I think what you need is your own machine in the DMZ, to be used solely for testing. Load it up with browsers (including multiple IE versions), and offer to be responsible for its care and feeding (taking liability away from IT).

If you still have problems, start jumping up and down and talking excitedly about disability and liability, and how you need to test the site against a screenreader. When you get that, have some browser stats handy showing that you also need to test against IE 5.5, Moz, Opera, etc etc.

(I've got to say, any org that didn't allow developers Admin rights to their own machines is one I'd walk away from - it would do my head in to be put in a situation where I'm being refused the tools I need to do my job).
posted by Leon at 8:28 PM on July 10, 2006

Oh - and if you're talking to IT, you're talking to the wrong people IMO. They're trying to make their job easier, not yours. Go to someone who can compel IT to service their customer's needs, rather than obstructing them.
posted by Leon at 8:30 PM on July 10, 2006

"It sounds like they have a certain process that they are required to follow"

they sure do: ITIL.

"What functionality is missing from IE that you need to get your job done?"

Well, I just wanted to check pages in different browsers, isn't that what web designers do? Is that unusual? I've noticed that some of our pages render differently in IE 6 and 7, I'd like to check them in mozilla browsers, but I don't want to check them from home. I was hoping to clear this up before asking for a screen reader.

I guess all I'm really hoping for here is some technical information I can use to rebuke their rather unsupporting take on user support. I've got around the problem before by harassing the helpdesk so much that someone gives me admin rights, but now I've got a new machine and no rights.
posted by Tixylix at 8:34 PM on July 10, 2006

This was answered several months ago, no, your IT people are not being unreasonable. (Disclaimer: I'm a Mac/Linux advocate, but I see both sides.) The easiest servers to secure are the ones that you have a specialization in.
posted by SpecialK at 8:50 PM on July 10, 2006

No-one's talking about servers. All they're saying is that they know how IE works and how to secure it and they can't be bothered to do anything else. Your chances of shifting them on this are slim-to-none with the emphasis on none. You'll have to test some other way, sadly.
posted by unSane at 9:07 PM on July 10, 2006

Special K; is what I'm asking for unreasonable? I understand that they have their own problems and concerns, however, I am required to ensure that our product conforms to accessability standards. uh, I didn't find the answer you alluded to, could you be more obvious, please? I need a customer service advocate, you sound like the IT guy Leon has advised me to avoid.
posted by Tixylix at 9:15 PM on July 10, 2006

Situations like this require movement up the food chain.

Contact your manager. Explain that to serve the public (or your clients), it's necesary to check your website design.

Explain that it's necessary to your job. Your manager should, in theory, talk to the manager of IT to get a waiver.

The function of IT is to protect the infrastructure and serve their users. This isn't a case of "Gee, I'd like to use other software." It's the case where, for your websites to be in compliance, it's necesary to have firefox, mozilla, and opera installed.
posted by filmgeek at 9:58 PM on July 10, 2006

What filmgeek said. Necessary indeed - Section 508 doesn't directly affect local gov't but use it as a leveraging tool if possible - i.e. that checking for accessibility in other browsers isn't just a nice pretty thing to do - it's becoming a standard and the law in some parts.

Doesn't sound much like they want to help you - but good luck and let us know how it goes. No, they don't sound reasonable at all.
posted by rmm at 10:26 PM on July 10, 2006

"Alternate Internet Explorers" make baby Jesus cry.

You can do what I do - Change the icon of firefox or netscape, or opera to the blue E. They don't sound like they'll know the difference. Portable Firefox and Opera seconded, too, as that way you can test and they don't have to do anything more.
posted by hoborg at 12:13 AM on July 11, 2006

Thanks everyone, the section 508 is a good link, but I omitted my location: Australia. However, our web publishing guidelines are pretty much ripped from WC3 so checking accessibility is very mich part of the job description. In theory anyway.

Thanks again
posted by Tixylix at 12:14 AM on July 11, 2006

Just to play devil's advocate for the IT folks:

a) IE plays nice with Windows "Automatic Update" features, so it gets unattended security updates as immediately as they're available from MS, if everything is configured correctly.

b) Your IT dept has a license and support from MS (we'll leave the discussion of how hard it is to get that support from MS out of this), likely a requirement of the dept. Firefox, while free and licensed under GPL, has no purchasable support contract (despite the ease with which you could find any answer on any topic surrounding Firefox all over the www)

c) There may be other software in the infrastructure hooking into IE. In real life, most of these work fine with Firefox, but on paper their vendors may state that they are only compatible with IE.
posted by poppo at 6:42 AM on July 11, 2006

Just install it and use it. How much trouble can you get in to? Sounds to me like they wouldn't know Firefox if it bit them on the ass, so you'd little to worry about.
posted by Mr. Gunn at 6:55 AM on July 11, 2006

Hmn, interesting. Ok, I misread the question. My apologies for coming at it from an IT angle. I'm still going to come at the problem from a geek angle, though.

The Australian government has been very forward-thinking about moving towards open-source solutions. In fact, some gov't agencies are required to use open-source products. Having your website be IE-only will prevent those people from visiting.

Your government's guidelines for open-source sourcing are here: http://www.agimo.gov.au/_sourceit/sourceit/oss. You really need to come at this from a consumer angle, pointing out that you need to check how the website appears in all browsers, especially because there are entire large chunks of your federal and state governments switching to open-source, which means they won't be able to view the site in Internet Explorer.

Oh, and I'll 2nd that the "alternative internet explorers" makes baby jesus cry. Holy crap, ignorance.

But if all else fails, I agree, just bring in FF and Opera on a thumbdrive.
posted by SpecialK at 9:09 AM on July 11, 2006

Oh, and it may be a big deal to connect an alternate browser to the 'net if they're using some sort of backasswards authenticated proxy setup depending on your Windows network. But that's just rediculous, and you should be able to get around it by checking the proxy setup in IE and copying the settings.
posted by SpecialK at 9:11 AM on July 11, 2006

"a) IE plays nice with Windows "Automatic Update" features, so it gets unattended security updates as immediately as they're available from MS, if everything is configured correctly."

This has nothing to do with Internet Explorer at all. you don't need IE to get the automatic updates to work, as that setting is in a control panel.

If the company is using an ISA proxy server, he might have issues getting Firefox to work anyway.
posted by drstein at 12:15 PM on July 11, 2006

drstein, you're taking my meaning backwards. yes, the "Automatic Update" doesn't need IE to be updated automatically. However, IE can be made to update automatically by using "Automatic Update", while Firefox cannot. This may be an incentive for his IT dept.
posted by poppo at 8:17 AM on July 12, 2006

"But if all else fails, I agree, just bring in FF and Opera on a thumbdrive."

yep, that suffices for previewing locally saved pages.

yeah, I've been doing that for a while with some programs that make work a little easier, and that don't need to alter the windows registry on installation - plebs like me aren't allowed to install software. I can't even put a shortcut on my desktop or reorganise the start menu, but that's another.... whatever.

So I'm sorry if I haven't told the whole truth, but what really annoys me is that I have to do it on the sly, and if anyone notices then I get a firm "tut-tut". I've been trying to get them to install an "alt IE" and I just get stonewalled with some very unconvincing replies.
posted by Tixylix at 10:30 PM on July 12, 2006