I have no idea about what the clause actually covers.. I'm
not a legal beagle, nor do I want to be.
Having someone run your ISP services, I.E. firewall, is akin
to having a security firm make deliveries for you. (OK this
might be stretching it a bit..)
Banks, rarely, if ever, make deliveries. They hire out a
security company who jobs it is to make secure, reliable
deliveries. Many banks (in Canada at least) use Brinks
as an example. Brinks cannot 100% guarantee that no theft
attempt will ever occur, but having them protect the banks
money, sure does lessen the chance then if employee joe-schmoe
did it himself.
I am not saying that we can stop all break-ins through the
firewall. (Anyone who does is lying to you, and you need to
change Firewall administrators right away!) But by having
a company that knows firewalls, one understands your needs and
services, one that knows the threats that exist and remains
current to the potential threats. That company has a much
better chance of preventing break-ins then if you give it,
as yet another, responsibility for an untrained employee.
But hey.. you did it in house therefore it MUST be
cheaper.. and more secure. (Not always.)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Kemker [SMTP:john .
> Sent: Monday, June 09, 1997 6:25 AM
> To: firewalls @
> Subject: RE: ISP Connection
> I'm still curious about the indemnification clause. Lawyers like to
> liability. It's their job. Insurance company lawyers like it even
> than most. (Notice who I work for.) I would be very surprised if
> insurance lawyers did not assist your corporate lawyers in crafting a
> carefully worded set of clauses in your contracts limiting your
> (and, therefore, the amount they would have to pay on a claim) to the
> least amount possible.
> This reminds me of the situation that occurred when they were building
> Hancock building in Boston. The builder had specified a particular
> glass, but the glass company had delivered a slightly smaller size
> A particularly nasty wind cropped up and pulled huge sheets of glass
> the building and blew them all over Boston. Hancock went to the
> contractor, who in turn went to the subcontractor (the glass company).
> They insisted on being recompensed for the damages. The glass company
> filed a claim with their insurance company...
> ...John Hancock was their insurance company.
> Firewalls Moral: Be careful to know who is liable in case of a
> It may be you.
> =========== REPLY PARTITION ===========
> On 06/06/97, at 05:15 PM, Paquette, Trevor wrote:
> >We have insurance for damage that may be caused by a break in.
> >I don't know what type of insurance it is, but it is suppose to cover
> >us in those situations.
> >> However what I'm curious about is whether mcc.net is really
> >> "on
> >> the hook" in this situation. BBN's SitePatrol, for example, comes
> >> with an
> >> extensive indemnification clause in its agreements ("if you're
> >> into,
> >> we're not liable"). Are you saying that mcc.net doesn't have one
> >> these
> >> clauses in their agreements?
> John E. Kemker III
> Systems Engineer, Primerica Financial Services
> 3120 Breckinridge Blvd., Duluth, GA 30199