I disagree that this is a vulnerability/weakness. If this is truly your only issue with the network, I'd call it good and done if you are not the DOD/NSA.
If you are, then you need to start again with an even more secure foundation. Walter On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 2:25 PM, Blake Cornell < bcorn...@integrissecurity.com> wrote: > There is a reason for it. It works well except for this ONE issue. > > I like setting up 0 vulnerability/weakness networks. This is the only > one minus presentation/application issues. > > Thank you both for your input. I'll touch base when I determine a > resolution strategy. > > -- > Blake Cornell > CTO, Integris Security LLC > 501 Franklin Ave, Suite 200 > Garden City, NY 11530 USA > http://www.integrissecurity.com/ > O: +1(516)750-0478 > M: +1(516)900-2193 > PGP: CF42 5262 AE68 4AC7 591B 2C5B C34C 7FAB 4660 F572 > Free Tools: https://www.integrissecurity.com/SecurityTools > Follow us on Twitter: @integrissec > > On 07/10/2014 01:49 PM, James Bensley wrote: > > Further to what Walter has said - Double NAT....Boooooooo! > > _______________________________________________ > > List mailing list > > List@lists.pfsense.org > > https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list > > _______________________________________________ > List mailing list > List@lists.pfsense.org > https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list > -- The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding. -- Justice Louis D. Brandeis
_______________________________________________ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
