Chapter 10 — Ethics and authorized practice
Lesson map
Lesson 10 published. Map, example, EX028.
flowchart TD
N0["Learning outcomes"]
N1["10.1 Authorisation"]
N2["10.2 Privacy"]
N3["10.3 Responsible findings"]
N4["10.4 Defensive purpose"]
N5["10.5 Conflicts of interest"]
N6["10.6 Escalation"]
N7["Writing it down"]
N0 --> N1 --> N2 --> N3 --> N4 --> N5 --> N6 --> N7
N7 --> EX["Worked example"]
EX --> Q["Exercise EX028"]
Logical drawing
flowchart LR
N0["Learning outcomes"]
N1["10.1 Authorisation"]
N2["10.2 Privacy"]
N3["10.3 Responsible findings"]
N4["10.4 Defensive purpose"]
N5["10.5 Conflicts of interest"]
N6["10.6 Escalation"]
N7["Writing it down"]
N0 --> N1 --> N2 --> N3 --> N4 --> N5 --> N6 --> N7 --> Q["EX028"]
[Learning outcomes]
|
v
[10.1 Authorisation]
|
v
[10.2 Privacy]
|
v
[10.3 Responsible findings]
|
v
[10.4 Defensive purpose]
|
v
[10.5 Conflicts of interest]
|
v
[10.6 Escalation]
|
v
[Writing it down]
|
v
[Worked example] --> [Exercise EX028]
Learning outcomes
You will (1) work within authorisation in cloud projects; (2) respect student privacy; (3) handle findings responsibly; (4) know when to stop and escalate.
10.1 Authorisation
Samuel's project agreement lists what he may access: read-only exports, a test account and documentation. He may not access production data or test production systems.
The test account lets him try configuration changes without touching StudyHub's live services. Production data is excluded because his project does not need it; everything he studies can be shown with exports and synthetic records. When he wanted to check a production registry setting, Tom ran the query and shared the result, which stayed within the agreement.
10.2 Privacy
Student records are personal data. Samuel's labs use synthetic data. If he encounters real data by mistake, he stops and reports it.
Once, a Kubernetes export contained a pod's environment variables, including a test user's email address that looked real. Samuel stopped, told Tom and deleted his local copy. It turned out to be a staff test account, but the habit of stopping first and asking later protects both the students and Samuel. He recorded the event in his access diary with the time and action taken.
10.3 Responsible findings
Findings go to Tom and Dr Jensen, not to classmates or public forums. Reports avoid details that would help misuse before fixes are made.
His project report describes the open registry as fixed and explains the general lesson without listing which other repositories had been checked or how. A classmate asked about the project in a seminar; Samuel described the method and results in general terms, since unresolved findings could still have helped someone misuse them. Detailed findings stay in the cloud team's tracker.
10.4 Defensive purpose
The project checks and improves configurations; it does not attempt to break in. Testing that could affect availability needs explicit approval.
Reading configuration exports cannot break StudyHub, but some tests could, such as a scan that floods a service with requests. Samuel's project includes none of those. If he needed such a test, the agreement requires written approval from Tom, a scheduled time and a way to stop it quickly. Keeping the project to reading and checking also makes it easy to explain to anyone who asks what he did, and the access logs confirm that he read exports and changed nothing in production.
10.5 Conflicts of interest
If a finding concerns a colleague's work, it is reported factually, without blame.
The open registry had been configured by a colleague on Tom's team who had since moved to another project. Samuel's report describes the setting and its effect without naming who made it. The review focuses on why the setting was possible and unnoticed, which is the useful question for preventing a repeat. Samuel also gave the colleague a chance to read the finding before it was shared, which caught one small factual error and kept the working relationship good. Reports that blame individuals make people defensive and less willing to report their own mistakes.
10.6 Escalation
Signs of active misuse go immediately to Westmere's security team.
Signs of active misuse include unexpected sign-ins, unknown resources or unusual data transfers. Samuel's job is not to investigate them himself; the security team has authority and tools he lacks. His agreement lists the team's contact, and he reported the build-log key described below within minutes of seeing it. Speed matters more than certainty here: a false alarm costs the security team a few minutes, while a delay could let an attacker continue. Samuel's agreement says to report first and explain later, and the security team thanked him for doing exactly that.
Writing it down
Samuel's project agreement is signed by Tom, Dr Jensen and Westmere's data protection officer before he receives any exports. It lists permitted data, storage location, retention and contacts for reporting concerns. Having it in writing protects Samuel as well as the university: if a question arises about what he accessed, the agreement and access logs answer it. He keeps a short access diary recording each export he receives and when he deleted local copies.
Supervisor role
Dr Jensen checks quarterly that the project stays within its agreement and signs the access diary.
Worked example
While reviewing exports, Samuel sees an access key printed in a build log. He does not use or test it; he reports it to Tom, who revokes it within an hour and adds log masking to the build system.
Synthetic case. Events are synthetic.
Errors and limits
Testing a found credential, even to check it works, is using it without authorisation.
Exercises
- EX028 — Allowed access. What may Samuel access? Rubric: 3 = read-only exports, test account, documentation; 2 = two; 1 = one; 0 = none.
- EX029 — Found key. What did Samuel do with the found key? Rubric: 3 = reported, did not use; 2 = partial; 1 = vague; 0 = none.
- EX030 — Testing a credential. Why not test a found credential? Rubric: 3 = that is unauthorised use; 2 = partial; 1 = vague; 0 = none.
Synthesis
Stay within authorisation and report findings responsibly.
Continue studying — chapter 10 of 40
← Chapter 09 (draft) · Course chapter index · Chapter 11 (draft) →