On Sunday 12 October 2008 10:00:04 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Wellllllll........
>
> I don't know what makes you flame so hard with a simple suggestion of mine.
>
> I've tested PortKnock, I like it and I feel comfortable with it. Since
> Phill had asked an open question for alternative approaches to secure his
> network, I made a simple suggestion.
>
> I don't know why you take it so personally to prove your point better than
> mine and start an all out war with it, or is it the technical supremacy ego
> that kicks in at times...
>
> Mate, we all don't know everything, but we're here to learn and share with
^^^^^^^^
> others... I'm sure you have more knowledge and experience than me and I
> respect you for that. And I'm sure your CGI script or some other approach
> would do the trick just fine, but what I learnt along the way I thought
> of sharing in this space.... am I wrong for it, you be the judge.
IMHO port knocking is a silly waste of complexity, specially since
establishing (in practice) that non-standard ports makes the problem
disappear so in that respect I found Daniels arguments well presented and met
the goals of 'learn and share'.
He may have presented his argument pedantically, but each and every assertion
is presented in a way that I can debate or test, so it was very useful
James
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
