> 8< [snip]
> (Useless vendor ranting deleted)
I don't appreciate that comment.
> Please go back & re-read the threads on this subject. The subject
> at hand was user->firewall encryption, *not* firewall->firewall
> encryption. As stated earlier (and repeated more often than I
> really care to), most firewalls can handle firewall->firewall
> encryption, including the FW-1 also.
I don't recall that part of the thread. This isn't a nicely packaged
article in a magazine but a dynamic conversation that can and does
split into multiple threads/subjects. So when someone asks a
specific question, it should be answered specifically. As an I.S.
professional who is experienced with this medium one should know that
people don't always tune in from the beginning of the topic. As a
result, statements made could easily be taken out of context. So
it is important to be careful in how you reply.
The question was specifically asked about FW-1 preventing session
hijacking. You said it no, someone else said yes, and then I jumped
in. I think that if you had been clearer in your reply and stated
the context of your 'no' then we wouldn't be having this
conversation.
I only have green apples in my refrigerator and when my daughter just
asked if she could have an apple I didn't tell her we didn't have
any. I told her all we had were green ones, which I know she doesn't
like. She knows we have apples; they just don't meet the requirements
of the context of her question.
> On the same subject, I just got a mail from someone claiming
> to be from Checkpoint stating FW-1 V2.0 can prevent Terminal
> Session Hijacking - without using encryption and/or increasing
> the size of the packets. It promises to be an interesting mail.
> I'll comment on it after I get the mail. I would definitely
> like to be enlightened on this.
Good; perhaps you could share it with the list. I don't think CP
responds to the list any more because they've been burned too many
times. If my current and potential customers didn't follow this list
I wouldn't comment either as I too have received too many private
flames. However I also receive private support messages, including
some from competitors, and that is nice.
--
Adam Horwitz (708) 778-9531
Tripcom Systems Inc. adam @
tripcom .
com
**************************************************************************
Michael Benard * Home of Nanaimo's
mbenard @
nanaimo .
ark .
com * Digital Ark - Internet Provider
CONTINET Internet Services Inc * Nanaimo, British Columbia CA
Tel 604.753.0909 * WWW-HTML Programming
Fax 604.753.0901 * http://www.ark.com/nanaimo/
**************************************************************************
|
|
