|
Tuesday, October 26, 2004 According to Nemertes Research, as much as 74% of all corporate IM use was initiated by employees without the sanction of corporate IT. In addition, most organizations lack systems for security, control, archiving and compliance -- across both public IM users and enterprise IM systems. For public IM, traditional measures such as firewalls can be ineffective at blocking use, therefore public companies may risk the severe penalties of Sarbanes-Oxley unknowingly. With the first major SOX deadline of November 15 fast approaching, corporations would be well served by adding a review of IM to their compliance efforts for this regulatory act. Under sections 404 (Management Assessment of Internal Controls) and 105(b), there is an emerging consensus that best practices for compliance means establishing processes for managing electronic communications and a system for archiving relevant messages, and that instant messages should be included in these efforts. White Paper: Akonix Warns Public Companies of Instant Messaging Sarbanes-Oxley Compliance Risks; With November 15 SOX Deadline Looming, Many Companies Face Risks from Unknown and Unmanaged IM Use Previous articles Poll: Sarbanes Oxley Deadline
|
Sponsored by:
Kumquat: Get the feedback you deserve
Learn more
FREE to Inside Sarbanes Oxley readers

|
About inside Sarbanes-Oxley inside Sarbanes Oxley is dedicated to finding the best sources of news and information on the changing landscape of Sarbanes Oxley and compliance. Whether you call it SOX, Sarbox, or the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, look no further than inside Sarbanes Oxley. More Copyright © 2004-2006, Inside Sarbanes-Oxley
|
Additional resources Try these recently updated resources: RSS Feed Interested in staying up-to-date on all the latest Sarbanes-Oxley news? Subscribe to the inside Sarbanes-Oxley RSS feed and get all of the latest news on SOX delivered directly to your feed reader. inside
Sarbanes-Oxley RSS Feed
|
Save yourself the time. Look at another company. These guys are good at marketing, bad at QA.