Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
>On Thu, 8 Aug 2002, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
>
>
>
>>C. As a general rule, I wish people would stop looking at NAT as a
>>security device. NAT IS NOT A SECURITY DEVICE!! NAT is just a way to get
>>more IPs in this tough no-ips world of IPv4.
>>
>>
>
>Specifically:
>
>A
On Thu, 8 Aug 2002, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
> C. As a general rule, I wish people would stop looking at NAT as a
> security device. NAT IS NOT A SECURITY DEVICE!! NAT is just a way to get
> more IPs in this tough no-ips world of IPv4.
Specifically:
A NAT router has an added-value security featur
On Fri, 9 Aug 2002, Aviram Jenik wrote:
> >
> > A. Doing that requires reflushing the modem,
>
> No reflashing is required. It seems that you only need to set a special
> technician code to enable that feature (I've heard about it done by very
> non technical people by following a step-by-step gu
>
> A. Doing that requires reflushing the modem,
No reflashing is required. It seems that you only need to set a special
technician code to enable that feature (I've heard about it done by very
non technical people by following a step-by-step guide on the Internet).
> making it think it is
>
On Thu, 8 Aug 2002, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
>
> A. Doing that requires reflushing the modem, making it think it is
> "Speed Touch Pro". Aside from certain claims it is illegal (can anyone
> explain why? It is, after all, a modem I BOUGHT from Bezeq, and it is
> mine to tweak with as I see fit, IANA
