Re: NAT is not a mechanism for securing a network.. but.. HELP!
From: Volker Birk (bumens_at_dingens.org)
Date: 08/24/05
- Next message: Nicky: "Re: NAT is not a mechanism for securing a network.. but.. HELP!"
- Previous message: Wattsville Blues: "Re: Zonealarm Problem"
- In reply to:(deleted message) Leythos: "Re: NAT is not a mechanism for securing a network.. but.. HELP!"
- Next in thread: Leythos: "Re: NAT is not a mechanism for securing a network.. but.. HELP!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: 24 Aug 2005 14:54:44 +0200
Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote:
> In article <430c66b7@news.uni-ulm.de>, bumens@dingens.org says...
> > Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote:
> > > When you combine it with a proper amount of public outbound access it
> > > means it's very secure.
> > BTW: this means, not to allow any search engine, like Google or Yahoo.
> > It means also, blocking i.e. the New York Times, because it has a
> > Google plugin.
> So, what's your point?
> Just how many Accounts need to access Yahoo or Google?
Everybody in the companies, I'm leading.
> What part are you missing about Businesses are there for you to WORK,
> not to search/play/browse the web in your spare/free/working time.
What a shortsighted and dumb point of view. It's sad, to read this
in Usenet.
> Also, you could easily allow Yahoo and Google and have no thread of
> someone using a tunnel through to those sites to get to their home
> computers. Just because you allow Yahoo and Google doesn't mean you have
> to allow them access to all the sites in the resulting search or to the
> links that are not contained within the sites.
With Google cache i.e., you cannot deny that people are seeing what
you don't want them to see. This is one way.
For example, http://validator.w3.org/ i.e. works two way. It should be
easy to build an IP tunnel with it ;-)
I hope for your users, that they will find many creative ways to tunnel
through your "firewalls".
Hm... did you think about mail tunneling also? Or is it allowed to
send E-Mail to fixed addresses only? :-P And: are you sure, that there
nobody will have a tunnel gateway to the free network?
Yours,
VB.
--
"Es kann nicht sein, dass die Frustrierten in Rom bestimmen, was in
deutschen Schlafzimmern passiert".
Harald Schmidt zum "Weltjugendtag"
- Next message: Nicky: "Re: NAT is not a mechanism for securing a network.. but.. HELP!"
- Previous message: Wattsville Blues: "Re: Zonealarm Problem"
- In reply to:(deleted message) Leythos: "Re: NAT is not a mechanism for securing a network.. but.. HELP!"
- Next in thread: Leythos: "Re: NAT is not a mechanism for securing a network.. but.. HELP!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
