On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 10:11:54 -0500, Won Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Isn't blocking the ports the first step in that direction? > > There was an article in the WSJ yesterday about this very topic. One > one side you have Symantec, whose point of view is to cure the disease. > On the other side, you have certain companies that actually own the > lines, the two mentioned specifically were AT&T and Sprint, that have a > prevent the disease before it happens point of view. AT&T and Sprint > haven't been able to fully implement their way of dealing with PC > security and they are going against the gorilla in the industry. > > Symantec, I consider to be like a pharma. They realize it is much more > lucrative to cure the disease then actually prevent it. Blocking ports is akin to cutting off an arm to prevent infection. So as you say, it may prevent the spread of the disease, but it leaves you crippled. -Kevin ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Gold Sponsor - CFHosting.net http://www.cfhosting.net Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:135666 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
