Nowhere did I say netmeeting was part of my business. I said h.323. h.323 is a secure and industry standard protocol. My phone systems even use it now. If GTA doesn't get with the times they will lose my company's business to one that does.
Besides, show my one single exploit that utilizes h.323 protocol streams, netmeeting or not. People just don't like it because of the end to end connection. AIM is more of a security risk than netmeeting. Get real Chris Green >From: Nick Holland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: netmeeting? >Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 13:46:07 -0400 > >--------------------- Attention ----------------------------- >Online GNAT Box User Forum is Now Open >Click the Register link and sign up today >http://www.gnatbox.com/cgi-bin/Ultimate.cgi >------------------------------------------------------------- >Send postings to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Access the list archives at: http://www.gnatbox.com/gb-users/ >------------------------------------------------------------- >I believe it is not that GTA considers h.323 an unimportant protocol >as much as they consider NetMeeting a dangerous product, in violation >of many rules of basic security. You let people into Netmeeting, you >barely have any firewall left to worry about. So, why not just save >yourself the cost and maintenance of a firewall and the delusion that >you have anything resembling system security? > >A firewall by itself does not make your network secure, especially >when you blow a hole in it that big. It would be much like getting >the newest and most secure locks for all the doors of your >office...and leaving them in the box. Or driving a bulldozer through >one wall because you find the locks inconvenient. Simply purchase of >the locks by itself does not make you secure! You are far better off >with NO locks than thinking you have security when you in fact do not. > >Do a search on your favorite search engine for "Netmeeting security", >read through the results. Pretty scary. > >Netmeeting is a bad idea. Basing your business around it is ALSO a >bad idea. A firewall won't protect you, not once you open enough >access to let NetMeeting do its damma..er..work. > >This leaves GTA in a bad position -- Do they play into the popular >demands that they blow a hole a mile wide in their firewall? If GM or >Ford considers adding a feature to their cars that would be popular >and yet they know could be dangerous, you can bet they are opening >themselves up to all kinds of unpleasant lawsuits should they decide >to implement the feature. So far, the computer industry has been >spared these kinds of lawsuits -- but I can't imagine this will last >forever. GTA has repeatedly made it publicly known they are aware of >security issues with Netmeeting -- don't even have to go digging >through secret company documents. Do you propose that they go ahead >and support it anyway? In heavy industry, that gets people big fines >and bad reputations. > >Nick. > > > >Chris Green wrote: > > Gnatbox cannot pass voice or video portions of netmeeting through NAT. >I am > > currently evaluating a seperate gatekeeper product that may work to go > > around gnatbox for h.323 connects. GTA does not consider h.323 to be an > > important protocol at all. They don't seem to understand that some of >us > > are switching to h.323 for everything we do, including our phone >systems. > > > > Chris Green > > > > >From: "Stuart Birchall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >Subject: netmeeting? > > >Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 11:56:39 +0100 > > > > > >Hi Everyone, > > >does Gnatbox supporting Microsoft Netmeeting? > > >Cheers, > > >Stu > > > > > > >---------------------------------------------- >To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] >with "unsubscribe gb-users your_email_address >in the body of the message ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
