On Sun, 2 Nov 1997, Russ wrote:
> >Which doesn't mean that a number of people haven't done such tests. I
> >think your predicates may hold true for 'most customers', but that
> >different predicates, and resultant answers should apply for security
> >professionals. Just because you, or your customers, or your company
> >(genericly, not personally) can't do valid tests doesn't make valid
> >any less relevent.
> I, my customers, and my company can do valid tests. While your
> parenthetic disclaimer "(generically, not personally)" may be have been
> enough in your mind, the wording comes off sounding too much like a
> personal reproach for my liking.
I have clarified this. I will again repeat that it was not specificly
aimed at you, and in no way was meant to cast such aspersions.
> I never said that the tests weren't valid, but no test results exist in
> the public realm that can reliably be used by anyone who chooses not to
> do the tests themselves (or cannot). Therefore no valid test results
> exist for the vast majority of customers wishing to implement Firewall
> solutions, hence my point that the marketing of the products/technology
> is a very large factor in the decision process.
Parts of tests certainly can though. Since I'm not going to cast
aspersions at particular products, let's just say that there is a set of
test results which can be applicable. For example, testing products to
performance failure, and noting the failure characteristics can be
applicable to anyone using that device.
> I put it to you that much of what "professionals" say about the
> technology is based on what I call "marketing information".
I'll agree with that.
> The first sentence explains the second. You don't think marketing is
> relevant to the technical discussion, hence you don't understand why I
> made my points about marketing being important. Rather than trying to
> blow off my opinions, why not instead ask me why I think their relevant
> next time, maybe you'll learn something (boy do I wish I had a "clue
Ok, could you explain why you think that particular instances of marketing
rhetoric are applicable to the general discussion of base technologies?
Surely the technology works the same way that the technology works
regardless of what any particular company says about it?
Paul D. Robertson "My statements in this message are personal opinions
net which may have no basis whatsoever in fact."