«

Shane wrote:
> Earl Grey wrote:
>
>> Shane wrote:
>>
>>> You tell me, youre the expert that forgets road warrior machines are the
>>> leading cause of problems in a network
>> Can those problems be prevented by a firewall ?
>> They are usually virus infections aren't they ?
>
>
> Some can
> Define: worm
>
So you think carrying around an external firewall would stop laptops
from being infected with viruses.
Are you intending to get a job in IT when you finish school ?

Earl Grey wrote:

> Shane wrote:
>> Earl Grey wrote:
>>
>>> Shane wrote:
>>>
>>>> You tell me, youre the expert that forgets road warrior machines are
>>>> the leading cause of problems in a network
>>> Can those problems be prevented by a firewall ?
>>> They are usually virus infections aren't they ?
>>
>>
>> Some can
>> Define: worm
>>
> So you think carrying around an external firewall would stop laptops
> from being infected with viruses.

So you think your internal software firewall is going to keep on chugging
along with those viruses and spyware attacking it?
(Gosh wasnt that the point two or three days ago)

> Are you intending to get a job in IT when you finish school ?

I have jobs now tyvm But please, keep showing your ignorance

And judging by you finally showing the reasons why I suggest external
firewalls in the first place after how many days of arguing, I have to ask,
do *you* have a job?

--
Mayor Poopenmeyer: I now award you with the Academy Prize, which was
confiscated from Dr. Wernstrum after it became apparent that he was a
jackass.

blog: http://shanes.dyndns.org

Shane wrote:
> I have to ask,
> do *you* have a job?
>
I own the company

Earl Grey wrote:

> Shane wrote:
> > I have to ask,
>> do *you* have a job?
>>
> I own the company

I prefer dilmahs myself, but w/ever does it for you
--
Fry: Alright, alright. What happened to me, Philip J. Fry, on the night of
December 31st, 1999?
Master Brain: Clarification request. Are you the Philip J. Fry from Earth or
the Philip J. Fry from Hovering Squid World 97a?
Brain: Earth, you fat idiot, hurry up.

blog: http://shanes.dyndns.org

In message <egi1b8$2n0$>, Shane wrote:

> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> In message <eghus8$u04$>, Shane wrote:
>>
>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>
>>>> In message <egfmmo$p49$>, TomC wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Shane wrote:
>>>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In message <egf76k$rhg$>, Shane wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In message <ege2ed$qjh$>, Shane wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In message <egcj8c$5pl$>, Shane wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In message <egchlu$1i2$>, Shane wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In message <egcgb4$go$>, Shane wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In message <egcedq$rda$>, Shane wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your search - cisco firewall remote vulnerability
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> site:www.securtiyfocus.com - did not match any documents.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Suggestions:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Might be a good idea...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.. it should have been spelled
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course you realize that privilege escalation on Cisco is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> essentially trivial, since the OS doesn't enforce privilege
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separation between processes? That's why the Lynn attack was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so devastating.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> </wondering why Im playing with small minded people this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> afternoon>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So the idea that having a physically-separate firewall, like a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cisco, is inherently superior to having it run on the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine, is hard to justify, provided the machine is running
>>>>>>>>>>>>> an OS that enforces proper privilege separation. That is, not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> like Windows, but like Linux.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So the idea of having a software firewall on a host running
>>>>>>>>>>>> Windows Xp is infinitely superior in your mind to a seperate
>>>>>>>>>>>> firewall machine running...
>>>>>>>>>>> I did say _not_ like Windows, did I not?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Well I didnt say cisco did I?
>>>>>>>>> You did, above.
>>>>>>>> Let me know if you grow up would you
>>>>>>> Sudden emission of smokescreen to distract attention from the topic,
>>>>>>> I see.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or you could continue with the childishness, not going to change
>>>>>> anything
>>>>>
>>>>> There is a time when a topic degenerates into a
>>>>> heap of ego crap.......
>>>>> Why don't you guys go & do the dishes
>>>>
>>>> I have caught my opponent out in an inconsistency. Your attempt to
>>>> hijack the thread doesn't change that.
>>>
>>>
>>> You have caught yourself being an idiot
>>> I have nfi what your problem is, and am asking why you need to resort
>>> childish behaviour
>>
>> What was "childish" about pointing out that you _had_ mentioned Cisco
>> when you claimed you hadn't?
>
> What was childish about you snipping ...

What indeed. Especially since you didn't seem to be contributing anything to
the argument at hand, which was about whether physically-separate firewalls
were inherently superior to on-board ones or not.

Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> In message <egi1b8$2n0$>, Shane wrote:
>
>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> In message <eghus8$u04$>, Shane wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In message <egfmmo$p49$>, TomC wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Shane wrote:
>>>>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In message <egf76k$rhg$>, Shane wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In message <ege2ed$qjh$>, Shane wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In message <egcj8c$5pl$>, Shane wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In message <egchlu$1i2$>, Shane wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In message <egcgb4$go$>, Shane wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In message <egcedq$rda$>, Shane wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your search - cisco firewall remote vulnerability
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> site:www.securtiyfocus.com - did not match any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> documents.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Suggestions:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Might be a good idea...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.. it should have been spelled
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course you realize that privilege escalation on Cisco is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> essentially trivial, since the OS doesn't enforce privilege
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separation between processes? That's why the Lynn attack
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was so devastating.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> </wondering why Im playing with small minded people this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> afternoon>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So the idea that having a physically-separate firewall, like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a Cisco, is inherently superior to having it run on the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine, is hard to justify, provided the machine is running
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an OS that enforces proper privilege separation. That is, not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like Windows, but like Linux.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So the idea of having a software firewall on a host running
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Windows Xp is infinitely superior in your mind to a seperate
>>>>>>>>>>>>> firewall machine running...
>>>>>>>>>>>> I did say _not_ like Windows, did I not?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Well I didnt say cisco did I?
>>>>>>>>>> You did, above.
>>>>>>>>> Let me know if you grow up would you
>>>>>>>> Sudden emission of smokescreen to distract attention from the
>>>>>>>> topic, I see.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Or you could continue with the childishness, not going to change
>>>>>>> anything
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is a time when a topic degenerates into a
>>>>>> heap of ego crap.......
>>>>>> Why don't you guys go & do the dishes
>>>>>
>>>>> I have caught my opponent out in an inconsistency. Your attempt to
>>>>> hijack the thread doesn't change that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You have caught yourself being an idiot
>>>> I have nfi what your problem is, and am asking why you need to resort
>>>> childish behaviour
>>>
>>> What was "childish" about pointing out that you _had_ mentioned Cisco
>>> when you claimed you hadn't?
>>
>> What was childish about you snipping ...
>
> What indeed. Especially since you didn't seem to be contributing anything
> to the argument at hand, which was about whether physically-separate
> firewalls were inherently superior to on-board ones or not.

Really, that explains your behaviour...
--
Bender: There! Now no one can say I don't own John Laroquette's spine!

blog: http://shanes.dyndns.org