Re: NAT is not a mechanism for securing a network.. but.. HELP!
From: CyberDroog (CyberDroog_at_ClockworkOrange.com)
Date: 08/25/05
- Next message: Duane Arnold: "Re: NAT is not a mechanism for securing a network.. but.. HELP!"
- Previous message: Stuart McGraw: "Re: NAT is not a mechanism for securing a network.. but.. HELP!"
- In reply to: Volker Birk: "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: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 18:27:32 GMT
On 25 Aug 2005 07:58:29 +0200, Volker Birk <bumens@dingens.org> wrote:
>CyberDroog <CyberDroog@clockworkorange.com> wrote:
>
>> 30 to 40% of Internet surfing during work hours is not business related.
>
>Nice. But off-topic.
Threads drift... Besides, the necessity of prohibiting unrestricted access
to the net is a security issue.
-- EDUCATION, n. That which discloses to the wise and disguises from the foolish their lack of understanding. - Ambrose Bierce
- Next message: Duane Arnold: "Re: NAT is not a mechanism for securing a network.. but.. HELP!"
- Previous message: Stuart McGraw: "Re: NAT is not a mechanism for securing a network.. but.. HELP!"
- In reply to: Volker Birk: "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
|