Re: Firewall needed behind router?

From: Moe Trin (ibuprofin_at_painkiller.example.tld)
Date: 06/15/05 

Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 20:00:30 -0500

In the Usenet newsgroup comp.security.firewalls, in article
<42af65c3$0$91652$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com>, Mark wrote:

>"Moe Trin" <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld> wrote

>> Charles, at home I got rid of microsoft windoze in 1992. At work,
>> several versions may have been installed for evaluation on the test
>> network over the years, but it never got out of the test lab. We don't
>> need it - therefore we don't use it. That means no viruses, no spyware,
>> no worms, no trojans, no problems.
>
>LOL you're in for a nasty shock.I hope your job doesn't depend on this ;)

How so? We've got something like 1800 systems in this facility, and not
one of them is running windoze of any variant. This division is Research
and Development, and we also have the corporate routine bean counters.
Company wide, there's probably 50 or 60 thousand systems in North America
in six facilities, and close to the same number in half dozen other
countries in Asia, Europe, and South America. About the only windoze
systems I'm aware of are in marketing, and probably corporate legal.
Heck, I suspect marketing probably has more Macintosh crap than windoze
boxes.

For that matter, the company where my wife works as a tax accountant
(regional retailer) doesn't have more than a handful of windoze boxes
either, compared to over a thousand boxes running *nix (mainly Linux,
but some OpenBSD). They switched because of license costs and security.

So, why should I be in for a nasty shock?

        Old guy

Relevant Pages