Re: NAT is not a mechanism for securing a network.. but.. HELP!
From: Leythos (void_at_nowhere.lan)
Date: 08/25/05
- Next message: Duane Arnold: "Re: NAT is not a mechanism for securing a network.. but.. HELP!"
- Previous message: Frankster: "Re: Is There a Virus that Breaks DNS?"
- In reply to: Floyd L. Davidson: "Re: NAT is not a mechanism for securing a network.. but.. HELP!"
- Next in thread: Floyd L. Davidson: "Re: NAT is not a mechanism for securing a network.. but.. HELP!"
- Reply: Floyd L. Davidson: "Re: NAT is not a mechanism for securing a network.. but.. HELP!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 00:33:23 GMT
In article <878xyrb7yp.fld@barrow.com>, floyd@apaflo.com says...
> Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote:
> >Nope, I think you assumed that the internet, from work, should not be
> >restricted to anyone?
> >
> >In reality there are very few businesses that need to provide ANY
> >internet access to employees while at work. Even ones that need internet
> >access only need limited access in almost every case.
>
> You've stated that several times in various articles. It is a
> bogus claim which assumes that every business is the same as
> yours apparently is. But other businesses have honest,
> intelligent and dilligent workers who need to get work done in
> the most efficient and effective way possible, which often means
> unrestricted access to the Internet.
I don't believe that for one instant - I've done support for more than a
hundred corporations in the last 5 years, many government groups, and
I've never seen one company (or learned about one) that required all of
it's employees to have complete, open, unrestricted, internet access.
Sure, there are groups in companies that are give it, but the majority
of employees in most companies don't need it to do their jobs.
Prove me wrong, list 5 companies we can check to see that everyone in
them needs full, unrestricted, open, access to the Internet - 5
companies with more than 50 employees.
I await your list.
-- spam999free@rrohio.com remove 999 in order to email me
- Next message: Duane Arnold: "Re: NAT is not a mechanism for securing a network.. but.. HELP!"
- Previous message: Frankster: "Re: Is There a Virus that Breaks DNS?"
- In reply to: Floyd L. Davidson: "Re: NAT is not a mechanism for securing a network.. but.. HELP!"
- Next in thread: Floyd L. Davidson: "Re: NAT is not a mechanism for securing a network.. but.. HELP!"
- Reply: Floyd L. Davidson: "Re: NAT is not a mechanism for securing a network.. but.. HELP!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|