They made the statement I quoted, I didn't. I quoted it precisely from
their web page, and then added my commentary. What do you think they
were trying to say when they said it "protects your internal IP servers
and workstations from Internet hackers", if not that it COMPLETELY
protects them? How difficult would it have been to say that it "adds
protection..."? Which still would have been WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.
Not only do they make that statement, but on the same page as that
statement (http://www.on.com/ipfunnel/ogipfeat.htm) they have a network
diagram that shows the On Guard IP Funnel as the only device between the
internal network and the router connecting to the Internet. That's their
diagram bud. They don't show any Firewall anywhere in sight.
So I see no reason why my message is unfair in any way, shape, or form.
As for my comment about Microsoft, I said REJECTED Microsoft marketeers,
you know, the ones that Microsoft wouldn't want working there because
their too free with their words. This isn't a flame against Microsoft,
duh.
You got anything intelligent to say on just why you think NAT offers ANY
SECURITY AT ALL??? I can't wait to hear it. I mean ANY SECURITY AT ALL.
Let me say it again so there's no misunderstanding;
TELL ME WHAT SECURITY IP FUNNEL (with the features listed) PROVIDES TO A
NETWORK EXPOSED TO THE INTERNET WITH NOTHING ELSE BUT A ROUTER BETWEEN
THEIR TRUSTED MACHINES AND THE WILD BLUE YONDER AS SHOWN IN THE IP
FUNNEL NETWORK DIAGRAM.
Russ
R.C. Consulting, Inc. - NT/Internet Security Consulting
Follow-Ups:
-
RE: NT NAT
From: Carl Karlsson <ckn @
findata .
se>
|
|
