Case Study: United Technologies Corporation “10 Things we did to lock down SharePoint Collaboration”

1. Case Study: United Technologies Corporation “10 Things we did to lock down SharePoint Collaboration” November 2013 Jared Matfess

2. Thank you sponsors!

3. About Me SharePoint Administrator at United Technologies Corporation 10+ years in the IT field, 0 book deals.President of the CT SharePoint User Group http://www.ctspug.org Blog: www.JaredMatfess.comTwitter: @JaredMatfess E-mail: Jared.Matfess@outlook.com

4. Agenda • Overview of United Technologies Corporation • The “10 Steps” towards more secure collaboration

6. Background Information • June 2012, United Technologies has entered into a consent agreement to settle violations of the AECA and ITAR in connection with the unauthorized export and transfer of defense articles, to include technical data, and the unauthorized provision of defense services to various countries, including proscribed destinations. • UTC developed new core focus on International Trade Compliance http://www.pmddtc.state.gov/compliance/consent_agreements/UTC.html

7. Technical Data The federal Export Administration Regulations (“EAR”) and International Traffic In Arms Regulations (“ITAR”) control the export of certain commodities, software, technical data and certain other information to foreign countries. The EAR and the ITAR can restrict the furnishing of information, technical data and software to foreign persons, whether this takes place abroad or in the United States. SharePoint Security & Governance at United Technologies Corporation

8. The Role of Corporate • Policies, Standards, Consulting • Shared Services • User Profile • Managed Metadata • Search* • Hosting of cross-business unit sites • Host of business unit homepages SharePoint Security & Governance at United Technologies Corporation

9. The Beginning of our Security Model Journey SharePoint Security & Governance at United Technologies Corporation

10. Step 1: User Separation by Web Application SharePoint Security & Governance at United Technologies Corporation

11. Technical Implementation • Created web applications and set user policies that would “Deny All” to users that did not meet the container requirements. • Relied on global Active Directory Groups such as “All Domain Users”

12. What About Claims?? • Microsoft convinced us to create claims-based Web Applications • Worked with Scot Hillier to develop a custom claims provider to augment Windows token with Active Directory attribute values. • If US Person = Yes & Work Location = US, person meets US Person claim for access to ITAR data • Leverage Claims for the Web Application “Deny All” rules • Great TechNet Article (written by Scot & Ted Pattinson) • http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/gg615945.aspx

13. Some gotcha’s… • Deny All • Service Accounts– Farm, Backup Software, Crawl account • Support Staff - SharePoint Farm Administrators, IT Help Desk, etc • User Data • Logic needs to include handling of value being NULL • Source data should be clean and complete

14. Step 2: Integrate Site Request with Security Model • InfoPath form captures key site metadata • Provisioning process writes data to Hidden List & Property Bag • Site requests reviewed weekly

15. ProTip: A Process Can Always be Improved • Work with your customers to improve your process • Groom them to be your SharePoint “Ambassadors” SharePoint Security & Governance at United Technologies Corporation

16. Step 3: Site Classification cue • Friendly cue to educate users to the classification of the site – is it locked down to US Persons only? US Export Tech Data allowed/disallowed • Delegate control placed on master page<SharePoint:DelegateControlrunat="server" ControlId=“Your Control Name" AllowMultipleControls="false"/> • Displays either control based on Web Application name

17. Step 4: Site Information button • Friendly cue to display overall information about the site – data owner, site owner, department, etc • Delegate control placed on master page<SharePoint:DelegateControlrunat="server" ControlId=“Your Control Name" AllowMultipleControls="false"/> • JQueryto read from hidden list and display values in table

18. Site Information button – Lessons Learned • We liked having the site metadata available in a hidden list because: • End users wouldn’t accidentally re-classify the site • You could index the data and perform custom search queries • We discovered we needed a process to update the site metadata beyond just a Help Desk ticket • As part of site provisioning we had been writing the information to both the hidden list as well as the site collection property bag*

19. Original Approach Using the SharePoint CSOM API to get a Property Bag value Great post! Jeremy Thake http://goo.gl/emfLVi SharePoint Security & Governance at United Technologies Corporation

20. Step 5: Report Inappropriate Content button Content Excluded • Popup window that provides employees options for reporting content • Delegate control placed on master page • Originated through discussions with HR about My Sites

21. Security Model - Visual Cues Summary 1 2 3 Site Classification cue – defines what type of data is allowed or disallowed per the site request process Site Information button – displays metadata about the site Report Inappropriate content button – provides a list of avenues for reporting information that a user deems is inappropriate

22. Step 6: Limitations of the Site Power User

23. Security Model – Roles & Permissions

24. Step 7: Forced classification for documents Our message to the Government is: “We want users to be accountable”.

25. The pain of “Manage Lists” Question: What is SharePoint? Short Answer: Lists & Libraries

26. Why we took it away? Content Approval Mandatory Content Types

27. End user feedback

28. Step 8 – Prototype & Consider Scale • First Production Pilot consisted of a SharePoint Designer workflow that would route all documents for initial upload & edit to an approver • Portability proved to be a big problem • Someone did the math for how much time people would spend approving documents in a collaboration site • The setup for each site collection would require a full time person doing nothing but site collection configuration

29. Build or Buy? • Continue to enforce through process and delegated administration (didn’t feel like an option) • Build a comprehensive solution • Event receivers • Timer jobs • PowerShell Scripts • Purchase a third party solution

30. Decision: AvePoint Partnership AvePoint Compliance Guardian: Rules engine for taking action on document classification. AvePoint’s DocAve Governance Automation: Allows end users to create lists/libraries without Manage List capability through automated workflow process. AvePoint’s DocAve Policy Enforcer: Enforcement engine to clean up legacy sites as well as ensure delegated administration adheres to policies.

31. Governance Automation • Request List Workflow • Security Trimming based on site collection access • Reference List Template in service

32. Compliance Guardian • If a user selects “Yes” for the Technical Data column, AvePoint’s Compliance Guardian will delete the file and send a user notification. • If a user selects “I don’t know” for the Technical Data column, AvePoint’s Compliance Guardian will quarantine the file and send a user notification. Complete Control

33. File Quarantine Notification

34. Quarantine Manager The Quarantine Manager can be found in the Site Settings section: http://site/_layouts/CCS.QuarantineManager/QuarantineManager.aspx

35. Quarantine Manager • Quarantine Manager’s can • Edit the properties • Restore the file • Permanently delete

36. Policy Enforcer • Timer jobs without all the fuss • Periodic scans/fixes • 40 built-in rules, SDK for more! Business use: Enable content approval on all document libraries on “everyone” sites. SharePoint Security & Governance at United Technologies Corporation

37. Solution Summary • List/Library creation through defined workflow (Governance Automation) • Periodic scans for compliance (Policy Enforcer) • Column Action Policies for delete or quarantine (Compliance Guardian) • Reporting on user activity (Report Center) • Scalable & Repeatable Process!

38. Step 9: Customized Training • Security isn’t easy or fun, so try to make it enjoyable • Role based training was much more effective than “SharePoint Foundations 1” • Lots of hand-holding in the beginning

39. Step 10: Make it easy where possible Implemented auto-classification where the Jurisdiction & Classificationare set to Nontechnical when Technical Data is set to “No”

40. Security Model Journey Next Steps • Leverage AvePoint Policy Enforcer to check if List/Libraries have mandatory columns • Restore “Manage List” to Power Users • Continue to educate and grow the Power User base • Increase reporting/visibility of rejected documents SharePoint Security & Governance at United Technologies Corporation

41. Summary • SharePoint Security is difficult but there are options • Prototype with simple solutions but always test for scale • Communication & training plans are the keys to success • Don’t be afraid of process improvement • They did name it SharePoint for a reason  SharePoint Security & Governance at United Technologies Corporation

42. Thanks for listening… Blog: www.JaredMatfess.comTwitter: @JaredMatfess E-mail: Jared.Matfess@outlook.com Connecticut SharePoint Users Group http://www.ctspug.org