On Monday 04 June 2007 18:06, Owen DeLong wrote:
> On Jun 4, 2007, at 1:41 PM, David Schwartz wrote:
> >> On Jun 4, 2007, at 11:32 AM, Jim Shankland wrote:
> >>> Owen DeLong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There's no security gain from not having real IPs on machines.
> Any belief that the
On 6/5/07, Joe Abley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5-Jun-2007, at 12:30, MARLON BORBA wrote:
> Are there live webcasts of NANOG presentations and talks?
> if so, where can I point my media player to?
For the benefit of anybody else who was wondering (assuming someone
already gave you an answer
On 5-Jun-2007, at 12:30, MARLON BORBA wrote:
are there live webcasts of NANOG presentations and talks?
if so, where can I point my media player to?
For the benefit of anybody else who was wondering (assuming someone
already gave you an answer in private mail), look here:
http://www.nan
fellow NANOGers,
are there live webcasts of NANOG presentations and talks?
if so, where can I point my media player to?
Abraços,
Marlon Borba, CISSP, APC DataCenter Associate
Técnico Judiciário - Segurança da Informação
TRF 3 Região
(11) 3012-1683
--
Dont just sit there and think it does not
On 6/5/07, David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Combined responses to save bandwidth and hassle (and number of times you
have to press 'd'):
--
> Just because it's behind NAT, does not mean it's unreahcable from the
internet:
Okay, so exactly how many times do you think we have to say
On 6/4/07, David Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I posit that a screen door does not provide any security. A lock and
> deadbolt provide some security. NAT/PAT is a screen door.
This is a fine piece of rhetoric, but it's manifestly false and seriously
misleading.
Hi, David
I think the
David Schwartz wrote:
>> Just because it's behind NAT, does not mean it's unreahcable from the
> internet:
> Okay, so exactly how many times do you think we have to say in this thread
> that by "NAT/PAT", we mean NAT/PAT as typically implemented in the very
> cheapest routers in their default conf
On 5/06/2007, at 9:29 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I posit that a screen door does not provide any security.
"Any" is too strong a word. For people living in an area with
malaria-carrying mosquitoes, that screen door may be more important
for
security than a sol
Combined responses to save bandwidth and hassle (and number of times you
have to press 'd'):
--
> Just because it's behind NAT, does not mean it's unreahcable from the
internet:
Okay, so exactly how many times do you think we have to say in this thread
that by "NAT/PAT", we mean NAT/PAT as typ
9 matches
Mail list logo
