Once upon a time, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu <valdis.kletni...@vt.edu> said: > In any case, to a first-order approximation, it doesn't even matter all that > much security wise. I mean - let's be *honest* guys. After XP SP2 got any > significant market penetration, pretty much everybody had a host-based > firewall > that defaulted to default-deny, so the NAT-firewall was merely belt and > suspenders.
Well, that covers the hosts. "Normal" people are adding more devices than PCs all the time, such as network printers (which have a very spotty security record, especially on the cheap end) and disk servers. Network devices like that _can't_ just block all access. -- Chris Adams <cmad...@hiwaay.net> Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.
