Hi again!
Hi Peter!
Peter da Silva wrote:
> In article <004601bec810$013a9140$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Mike Batchelor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Deepsixing the term server is actually a pretty good idea, and may have a good
> >chance of flying if you pitch a good VPN product as its replacement.
>
> How does a VPN product change the exposure? Either way the user's machine
> is simultaneously on the Internet and on the company lan... whether the
> second network connectin is through an encrypted tunnel or a DUN connection
> to a terminal server doesn't seem to make any useful difference.
>
> No, from a security standpoint a VPN is exactly the same as any other dual-
> homed setup. You'd get better security by recognising this and providing a
> DMZ for your modem pool or the "inside" end of the VPN, with only those
> resources your dialup users need to have access to exposed.
Does It mean that Walt Sullivan�s workgroup must configure something as a DMZ in
each PC at home?
Or
Does It mean that Walt Sullivan�s workgroup must configure a additional DMZ in him
Firewall?
If it is so, How Walt Sullivan�s workgroup protect those PCs at home? Remote
Management? Alerts?
I think that isn�t secure.
I think that is the 2nd ASK!.. Please, Peter reply me!. Is the 2nd.?
/javier
>
>
> --
> In hoc signo hack, Peter da Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> `-_-' Ar rug t� barr�g ar do mhact�re inniu?
> 'U` "Be vewy vewy quiet...I'm hunting Jedi." -- Darth Fudd
>
> -
> [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.]
