Brian Steele wrote:
>
> Clyde:
>
> My point is, I am not interested in a security solution based on another OS,
> if there is an equivalent one available for NT, the OS upon which my LAN is
> standardized. I am not interested in learning about the ins, outs, security
> problems, fixes et al about another OS, and add yet another list of security
> worries to my already full platter, simply to provide an access feature that
> may already be provided using an OS that I'm comfortable with.
>
> If there's a more secure replacement for PPTP that works on the NT platform
> (or with an NT-based network without requireming me to learn about a whole
> new OS), then that's the solution I'm interested in.
>
> Brian Steele
Ah, so it's just that you'd rather use NT... thats fine. The way your
post was worded, I thought you were saying that you would only look at
NT solutions...
In that case PGP's or <Insert NT Firewall Venodr's Solution Here> might
work for you.
Hardware based solutions are also good.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "D Clyde Williamson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Brian Steele" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 1999 11:25 AM
> Subject: Re: MS PPTP (Safe?) - alternative?
>
> > Brian Steele wrote:
> > >
> > > Good post. I'd like to add that any proposed replacement for PPTP be
> > > NT-based - I am certainly not interested in installing another OS on my
> LAN
> > > simply to provide VPN access, thereby substituting one potential
> security
> > > problem for another.
> > >
> > > Brian Steele
> >
> >
> > This reminds me of an old school janitor I knew. He always said "Duct
> > Tape and Angle Iron will fix anything". He ment it as a joke.
> >
> > I fear that many NT "security" people feel the same way. They don't ask
> > what the problem is before they pull out the duct tape, angle iron, and
> > NT Server disk. This is a VERY BAD THING.
> >
> > A person that purposly limits their options, is doing a disservice to
> > themselves and the company they work for. This is especialy bad when a
> > "security" person needs a "security" solution, but only looks at a set
> > of tools proven to be insecure. In this example, Microsoft has yet to
> > sucessfully create an encryption algorithm, but we have people locking
> > their options to one based in the Microsoft world.
>
> -
> [To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
> "unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
-
[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
