Oh and if there is any confusion about how lowering your firewall makes
you vulnerable to attack, there are these two handy diagrams to compare
the two states.
OMG, I would have had no idea! If I'm ever in charge of security at
a company that provides Internet security appliances, I'll be sure
to keep this handy guide at the ready.
-- How are a computer chip and a politician's career similar?
> Oh and if there is any confusion about how lowering your firewall makes
> you vulnerable to attack, there are these two handy diagrams to compare
> the two states.
> OMG, I would have had no idea! If I'm ever in charge of security at
> a company that provides Internet security appliances, I'll be sure
> to keep this handy guide at the ready.
I work for one of Barracuda's competitors; my little startup was the
pioneer in web application firewalls. It has long since been bought out
by a big networking and cloud infrastructure company. We heard about
this little incident when it happened, but I'm forwarding the links to
the team just for chuckles. <G>
On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 18:59:03 -0700, Catherine Jefferson wrote:
> On 4/8/2012 12:22 PM, Nobody Important wrote:
>> British Spam <british.s...@null.invalid> wrote in
>> news:jlrqu7$dte$1@dont-email.me:
>> Oh and if there is any confusion about how lowering your firewall makes
>> you vulnerable to attack, there are these two handy diagrams to compare
>> the two states.
>> OMG, I would have had no idea! If I'm ever in charge of security at a
>> company that provides Internet security appliances, I'll be sure to
>> keep this handy guide at the ready.
> I work for one of Barracuda's competitors; my little startup was the
> pioneer in web application firewalls. It has long since been bought out
> by a big networking and cloud infrastructure company. We heard about
> this little incident when it happened, but I'm forwarding the links to
> the team just for chuckles. <G>
My issue with them has always been Michael Perone - basically a former spammer. I'd also be deeply concerned at their employee vetting. They hire cheap to save money, and supervise poorly, meaning any monkey can be going through confidential customer emails on customer appliances - or gaining network access. There trust boundaries are way too lame.
> My issue with them has always been Michael Perone - basically a former
> spammer. I'd also be deeply concerned at their employee vetting.
*shrug*
You are clearly more informed about them than I am, but I wouldn't buy
their products for the simple reason that they swamped the Chicago
airwaves with some of the most ludicrously dumb and amateurish radio
ads, repeated ad nauseum, leading one to the inevitable conclusion
that if they couldn't even afford professional-sounding marketing, I
wouldn't want to trust a network security project to them either.
On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 08:46:29 -0700, Andy wrote:
>> My issue with them has always been Michael Perone - basically a former
>> spammer. I'd also be deeply concerned at their employee vetting.
> *shrug*
> You are clearly more informed about them than I am, but I wouldn't buy
> their products for the simple reason that they swamped the Chicago
> airwaves with some of the most ludicrously dumb and amateurish radio
> ads, repeated ad nauseum, leading one to the inevitable conclusion that
> if they couldn't even afford professional-sounding marketing, I wouldn't
> want to trust a network security project to them either.
> -- Andy
Spamming the airwaves with tatty ads. Love it :-) You've got to see the irony in that.
