Re: [fw-wiz] tunnel vs open a hole

From: Dave Piscitello (dave@corecom.com)
Date: 04/10/03

  • Next message: Gary Flynn: "Re: [fw-wiz] tunnel vs open a hole" 
    From: Dave Piscitello <dave@corecom.com>
To: firewall-wizards@honor.icsalabs.com
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 11:33:34 -0400

    I wrote something about this for BCR (twice)

    http://www.bcr.com/bcrmag/2003/02/p49.asp (with Steve Kent)
    http://hhiweb/piscitello-detection-vs-prevention.pdf

    We need software equivalents of
    service level agreements, not EULAs.

    What I can't fathom is why a company that purchases on the order of10,000
    desktop
    licenses and 2200 server licenses *ever* accepts a EULA - we are talking
    $M's here
    in the shrinked wrapped S/W, and arguably double that amount for S/W
    administration
    yet EULA is accepted practice, whereas the same company pays $10,000/month for
    telco/ISP access haggle SLAs to death.

    At 09:13 PM 4/9/2003 -0400, George Capehart wrote:
    > If the customers complained/sued, maybe it would get someone's attention
    > . . . ;-)

    David M. Piscitello
    Core Competence, Inc. &
    3 Myrtle Bank Lane
    Hilton Head, SC 29926
    dave@corecom.com
    843.689.5595
    www.corecom.com

    _______________________________________________
    firewall-wizards mailing list
    firewall-wizards@honor.icsalabs.com
    http://honor.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards

  • Next message: Gary Flynn: "Re: [fw-wiz] tunnel vs open a hole"