Re: Linksys firewall question
From: Skorpion (skorpion_at_newsgroups.cetro.nil)
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 14:09:02 -0500
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Leythos regaled us with the following:
> In article <email@example.com>,
> firstname.lastname@example.org says...
>> While I agree in principle that a *good* firewall meets all those specs,
>> it is excessively subjective to determine that anything "less" than those
>> specs is *not* a firewall.
> There is no gray area, either a device is a firewall or it's not. A NAT
> device, while offering SOME protection, is not a firewall. Don't be
> mistaken by the operation of NAT and the operation of a firewall.
> There is no perspective on this - it's like saying that because I think
> it's a firewall it must be - we're not talking Shakespear here, we're
> talking facts and ability. A NAT box is not a firewall.
I think perhaps you and Duane need to take a fresh look at the offerings
There *is* gray area; a Pacer or Edsel was still a car...
But that's not the point here.
I am not a Linksys apologist/advocate. Just be certain you have all the
information and that you have correct information.
Experience is wonderful but you must also keep current.
Skorpion [skorpion at suespammers dot org]
"Don't attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----