Re: Probes on Port 135 and 445 continue
From: Skorpion (skorpion_at_newsgroups.cetro.nil)
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 11:56:34 -0500
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Leythos regaled us with the following:
> And from your reasoning, since my home has paint on it and a protective
> shell and windows, it could be a car also - NOT.
Now *there* is a logically drawn conclusion...
> From your reply I would guess that you've never owned or managed a real
> firewall device?
And, I wonder, how did you arrive at that from my reply?
> What firewall appliances have you managed, installed, maintained, spec'd
> for a corporate office?
Suffice to say "that which is/was required".
Has no bearing on the issue...
It is not your experience I call into question; only your terminology.
I simply state that your assertion that only the highest-end devices can
rightly be termed "firewall" is faulty.
Having said that, and as I discovered in the other discussion in the other
group, you will fail to recognize that a device that can do something more
than translate a public IP to a private IP is more than a NAT device.
I will not attempt to change your opinion. But it is interesting to note
that you are having this "debate" with other folks in other news groups.
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-----