Businesses with smaller networks may even choose to appoint an IT expert to manually investigate each computer to obtain the installations. Reporting such raw data from AIA or other similarly over-inclusive tools therefore could result in drastically over-inflated audit exposure.įor this reason, automated audit results always should be subjected to secondary review for accuracy. Scott & Scott’s clients have indicated that Autodesk’s tool sometimes reports significant numbers of product installations later determined to be only free viewer installations. AIA and most other free scanning tools have been reported to elicit inaccurate information. Regardless of the method, however, a circumspect business should look at results from scanning tools – including AIA – only as starting points, not as end results. In addition, Autodesk recently has started to advocate heavily for the use of its own AIA scanning tool in order to obtain raw data from audit targets. Nevertheless, it is critical to choose an appropriate method to ensure the audit results are accurate.Ī self-audit usually may be conducted using various methods, including third-party scanning tools, such as Belarc, or manual inspection of each computer to obtain the installation information. Conducting a self-audit while facing potential copyright infringement claims from Autodesk or any other software publisher often is complicated and time-consuming.
0 kommentar(er)
