Re: Solution for NAT and FW Traversal or Pass-through ?!
From: Melinda Shore (shore@panix.com)Date: 10/20/02
- Next message: thales: "Re: Black Ice and Hackers :-)"
- Previous message: Masaya Norifusa: "Re: Solution for NAT and FW Traversal or Pass-through ?!"
- In reply to: Masaya Norifusa: "Re: Solution for NAT and FW Traversal or Pass-through ?!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
From: shore@panix.com (Melinda Shore) Date: 20 Oct 2002 11:57:45 -0400
In article <3db2d07e$0$27767$44c9b20d@news2.asahi-net.or.jp>,
Masaya Norifusa <m.norifusa@my.email.ne.jp> wrote:
>How about Permeo's solution? You can find details at www.permeo.com.
Like some others that have been proposed here (Ridgeway) and
*unlike* the protocols mentioned by the original poster,
Permeo allows users to circumvent local firewall policy.
Application security is a good thing, but giving people
tools to defeat network security is a pretty bad idea on any
number of levels.
Also note that the Permeo stuff seems to send traffic over a
TCP tunnel. If the application in question is voice, it'll
pretty much destroy audio quality.
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis - shore@panix.com
If you send me harassing email, I'll probably post it
- Next message: thales: "Re: Black Ice and Hackers :-)"
- Previous message: Masaya Norifusa: "Re: Solution for NAT and FW Traversal or Pass-through ?!"
- In reply to: Masaya Norifusa: "Re: Solution for NAT and FW Traversal or Pass-through ?!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]