Re: overcome NIS

Jan Pompe wrote:

> matt_left_coast wrote:
>> Jan Pompe wrote:
>>
>>
>>>You are a poor logician. "It was not designed to run without a
>>>firewall" is logically equivalent to "it was designed to run with a
>>>firewall" it's quite irrelevent whether it was specifically done that
>>>way or not.
>>
>>
>> No, it is NOT. What you are saying does not even make sense.
>>
>> "Not designed" Could mean total lack of any design regarding the issue.
>> Something could "not designed to run without a firewall" without ANY
>> intent to design it to run WITH a firewall.
>>
>> Is:
>>
>> My car was not designed to run without a iceberg.
>>
>> equivalent to:
>>
>> My car was designed to run with a iceberg?
>>
>
> That's right and both your statements are nonsense.

I did not think you were smart enough to understand. Thanks for proving your
idiocy once again. I would try to explain it with words you understand but,
unfortunately I can not do it using the words "Dick, Jane, Spot and Run".

I will try again, unfortunately for you, I will have to use words longer
than 4 letters. Please use a dictionary for words longer than 4 letters
that you do not understand.

Lets say I designed a network device that only only count packets it
receives. There was absolutely NO consideration of "firewalls" in the
design. Since I did not consider firewalls at all, I did not design it to
run without a firewall. Thus the device was "not designed to run without a
firewall". Since there was no consideration of firewalls, I did not design
it to run WITH a firewall, so, it also was NOT designed to run WITH
firewalls.

I know the words are way to long for you, but I hope you can find an adult
to explain it to you. If the design did not consider firewalls, then:

The statement:

not designed to run without a firewall

Could be true while

it is designed to run with a firewall

would be false.

Your claim that "not designed to run without a firewall" and "it was
designed to run with a firewall" are logically the same is just plain BS.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Firewall etc
    ... hatred of any 3rd party firewalls? ... security concept which is broken already by design. ... If you ask me, I'm saying the designers of the MS firewall, ... different and builds on the overall security enhancements of the OS ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.vista.security)
  • Re: SBS not for everyone?
    ... > In the case of every network we've protected, every compromised network ... >>> installations where firewall appliances have proven to be more than ... > testing, design, implementation, and follow the trends/ideas that others ... > Customer Data, Accounting Data, Social Security Numbers, business ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • Re: Inline firewalls vs. Inline firewalls "spaced out"
    ... You internal network should only be able to talk outwards, ... the first design. ... a third firewall has to be compromised. ... > greater security to your web boxes than the first design. ...
    (Security-Basics)
  • Re: Help! 1 to 1 NAT on Linksys RV082 opens up firewall!
    ... I just got off the phone with Linksys support as well and they are ... design and the other said that I was doing it wrong and needed to call ... > without defining any firewall rules to let me do so. ...
    (comp.security.firewalls)
  • Re: Help! 1 to 1 NAT on Linksys RV082 opens up firewall!
    ... I just got off the phone with Linksys support as well and they are ... design and the other said that I was doing it wrong and needed to call ... > without defining any firewall rules to let me do so. ...
    (comp.security.firewalls)