full-disclosure - SOX whistleblower requirements challenged in court? (Was SOX whistleblowers' clause Compliance)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4390361B.2080604@tampabay.rr.com>
Date: Fri Dec  2 11:55:05 2005
From: jasher1 at tampabay.rr.com (Jesse W. Asher)
Subject: SOX whistleblower requirements challenged in
 court? (Was SOX whistleblowers' clause Compliance)

I was curious about the mention of "the SOX whistleblowers requirements 
have been challenged in court".  Can anyone provide more information on 
this?  What has challenged and why?  Thanks!!

>>From: Madison, Marc [mailto:mmadison@...i.com] 
>>IANAL, But IMO use an Intranet web page that allows employees 
>>to submit
>>anonymous html post to the web server via html.  Now if your security
>>policy is pervasive then surely auditing is enabled on all 
>>your systems,
>>thus removing any anonymity this would have provided.  Have you
>>considered, dare I say, outsourcing?  I only say this since 
>>part of the
>>requirement calls for the company to provide sufficient anonymity to
>>individuals reporting issues.  By the way the SOX whistleblowers
>>requirements have already been challenged in court so there might be
>>precedence on what is sufficient.
>>    
>>