Re: New York Times article

• To: "Prince, Cheryl" <cprince@mfi.com>
• Subject: Re: New York Times article
• From: cwg@DeepEddy.Com (Chris Garrigues)
• Date: Wed, 11 Oct 1995 22:31:32 -0500
• Cc: www-security@ns2.rutgers.edu

At 3:03 PM 10/11/95, Prince, Cheryl wrote:

> So, now I'm completely confused. Didn't we already know that, on its own, the
> internet is hardly secure for the transmission of sensitive data?? The
>article
> does not explore these new "flaws" in the context of all the various security
> architectures and firewalls etc. that have been and are being developed and
> implemented. Has anyone else read the piece? Would anyone venture to make any
> sense of it?

I'd also thought that we all knew better than to run NFS on any host that's
visible to the outside world.  I hated having to follow a page one story to
the third section to figure out that it was content-free.

I really don't see what NFS has to do with netscape security (as implied by
the article).

Chris

Chris Garrigues                                         cwg@DeepEddy.Com
  Deep Eddy Internet Consulting                          +1 512 432 4046
  609 Deep Eddy Avenue
  Austin, TX  78703-4513    USA            http://www.DeepEddy.Com/~cwg/

• Re: New York Times article
• From: "Donald T. Davis" <don@cam.ov.com>
• Re: New York Times article
• From: Darren Reed <darrenr@vitruvius.arbld.unimelb.edu.au>
• Re: New York Times article
• From: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <dee@cybercash.com>

• Previous: Re: New York Times article
• Next: please post
• Index(es):
  • Index
  • Thread