Re: A "for what it's worth" bug (xpp & icf)
From: The Atomic Ass (the_atomic_ass@SPAM.KILLER.runbox.com)
Date: 09/01/02
- Next message: Adam S.: "errors on security updates"
- Previous message: The Atomic Ass: "Re: ntbackup"
- In reply to: Mark Guzowski: "A "for what it's worth" bug (xpp & icf)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
From: The Atomic Ass <the_atomic_ass@SPAM.KILLER.runbox.com> Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2002 03:31:34 GMT
Mark Guzowski elegantly belched in news:urJv8BUUCHA.3924@tkmsftngp12:
> WinXPP on a dual processor with dual nics. ICF can be configured on
> both nics, and appears to work, yet later verification reveals that one
> has actually not be enabled. Re-enabling has same effect.
Well, it's not hot *** to begin with, and it goes downhill from there.
(Although the previous statement could be applied to the OS, I was
insinuating the ICF).
IMHO, if you've got dual NIC's, it's best to get a REAL firewall, like
zonealarm.
-- Ranko, aka "The Atomic Ass" "The" *** on the Internet. ftp://ranko.d2g.biz/ | the_atomic_ass@SPAM.KILLER.runbox.com | ICQ: 96057212
- Next message: Adam S.: "errors on security updates"
- Previous message: The Atomic Ass: "Re: ntbackup"
- In reply to: Mark Guzowski: "A "for what it's worth" bug (xpp & icf)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]