I meant to cc this to the list, but haven't had enough coffee yet... ;-)
-----Original Message-----
From: Randall, Mark
Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 1999 8:28 AM
To: 'Jerald Josephs'
Subject: RE: Why not watchguard 2 ? (read on)
No, I'm not convinced of that. I'm not convinced of anything, much... It
was a topic for discussion thrown out there.
Before I can agree with your statement, we must determine what allowing
services to enter an enterprise securely means. I would say that many, many
companies out there that have installed firewalls have quite likely wasted
their money if they think they've "secured" their network.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jerald Josephs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, June 28, 1999 10:22 PM
To: Randall, Mark
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why not watchguard 2 ? (read on)
----- Original Message -----
From: Randall, Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 'Crumrine, Gary L' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 1999 2:34 PM
Subject: RE: Why not watchguard 2 ? (read on)
<snip>
> If you want to start talking what is secure and not secure, perhaps we can
> talk about why a company should bother with a firewall at all? For most
of
> today's uses, they are pretty much useless and don't offer much more than
> what you'd get with a screening router anyway.
>
Are you absolutely convinced about that?
Taking into the consideration of the numerous network services that
technology has
created over the past few years, wouldn't it be realistic to state that a
screening router is not
robust enough to allow such services to enter an enterprise securely?
Jerald Josephs
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
-
[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
