Re: Did I understand this right?
Yes! RFC3514 as the solution for all security problems.
31 posts • joined 18 Jan 2012
Yes! RFC3514 as the solution for all security problems.
What about a compensating control? You know that a system is vulnerable, and the risk of patching outweighs the [quantitively measured] risk of compromise, but you put in place a compensating control that mitigates the problem temporarily until a patch can be applied. IDS/IPS anyone? Snort SIDs 41818 & 41819 were available from March.
The difference is that for a DECT phone is that you rarely (if ever) put it in your pocket and go out for a walk. That's why slimmer is considered better for a mobile.
"The problem today is that all the manufacturers are focussed on bringing out essentially the same product." - this I couldn't agree more with.
So, what they are saying is that, given physical access, someone with a specially crafted USB key can cause a denial of service. What about just pulling the power cord? Denial of service achieved, and much less time-consuming than going to the lengths of creating that magic USB key.
600 terabytes? Is that all?
Not purchased; issued:
...and there was me thinking that Reg readers read and understood things before commenting or up/downvoting.
Thanks for pointing out the publication date of the RFC. It's an amusing read.
There is an RFC that makes network security a trivially easy thing. All that we need to do is update it for IPv6:
We just need to get EVERYONE to fully implement this RFC, and the network security problem is solved forever.
This looks like marketing puff. There is absolutely no content on the MGBase-T Alliance website - could this just be a PR exercise, whilst the real action happens elsewhere?
Is this just a ruse to distract people from where the real action is? There is also the NBase-T Alliance, which purports to do the same thing - deliver 2.5Gbps and 5Gbps over twisted pair. This is backed up by actual work being done at the IEEE - and was reported on by The Reg: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/11/ieee_turns_crank_on_new_wired_ethernet_standards/
Methinks the MGBase-T Alliance are bandwagon jumpers.
"...get a 2-blade chassis, a router blade and a 24-port switch blade." Cisco are years ahead of you. They have this now: get a Integrated Services Router, with 24 port PoE switch blade. And firewall. And IP PBX. And voicemail. And WAN acceleration. And a mini-server-on-a-blade.
explain how that works? How can we possibly be out of routes?
Amusing reference to RFC3514, bravo. But RFC3514 uses a packet header in the Layer 3 packet, whereas Security Group Tags are inserted into the Layer 2 frame header.
Grinning devil's head to signify the evil intent of applications in RFC3514.
What nonsense. I agree that devices running iOS are closed, but have you ever actually used Mac OS X? Do you not realise that it's a UNIX-based operating system, and just by opening Terminal you have access to the real 'guts' of the machine, far more so than a Windows PC? Yes, a lot of Mac users are computer-illiterate, but most of the developers/admins/engineers that I know use Macs, for the very reason that it's a UNIX-like operating system.
"How can this possibly be cheaper than setting up the traditional pneumatic cross-lane traffic counters?"
Tracking mobiles enables you to get information about the whole journey that was taken. Getting the same info using pneumatic cross-lane traffic counters would mean that every road would need to have them - surelt that's got to be more expensive?
Just one change to NAT syntax - around the 8.2/8.3 software releases - that's a long way from 'each ASA F/W upgrade'.
FWIW, configuring NAT on Cisco ASAs is now loads easier than it was before.
After seeing the bad joke that is Cisco's latest 'CX' update to their ASA platform
The 'CX' bit is pretty good, crappy management notwithstanding.
Yes - it's still an asynchronous service, so it's only 30Mbps upstream.
Your 100Mbps leased line will be the same upstream and downstream.
Erm... the article was about Nirvanix, not Nutanix.
What - CLI doesn't do it for you?
"...boost Wi-Fi transmitter output..." And potentially break the law. There is a limit of 100mW EIRP transmit power for 2.4GHz radio in the UK.
Erm... are you talking about the same product here? This is the iMac - might be a bit tricky to balance on your knees on a plane/train/ferry.
Oh - and if a Blu-Ray drive is important for you, then buy a product that includes a Blu-Ray player. Simples.
Sure. Just point them in this direction:
A successful business based on rackmounting Mac minis!
Well said (except for the 'dispair' bit). And how many commentors actually read the NCAP article in question? I reckon none, given the ignorance of some of the comments on here.
Personally, I would like to see more of the details and statistics and think about it, rather than coming to a knee-jerk reaction approx. 8 seconds after reading a 300 word Reg article. I reckon that the folk at Euro NCAP have given it a lot more thought than *everyone* reading this article.
1Password on the two different computers (and one smartphone) that I own, with the encrypted password repository stored on DropBox. Easy synchronisation of password info on all computers, and all of my web accounts have secure, random passwords.
Until there is low-cost, universal multi-factor authentication available, we are stuck with passwords :(
If the interest owed is LIBOR + 16%, why don't they just ask their bank to manipulate the LIBOR rate to, say, -17%, and have the debt paid off for them?
Er... are you confusing Ethernet with Token Ring?
"... Ethernet and packets at the Layer 2 level" - the correct terminology is a Layer 2 datagram or frame. A packet is a Layer 3 concept.
Good to see OpenFlow getting some exposure.
Sorry chap, but the RV220W is not a 'real' Cisco product. Says Cisco on the box, but this is a continuation of the product development done by Linksys previously. Designed as an easy-to-use (i.e. graphical user interface) product, and not a 'proper' network device.
For less than £100 more, you could have bought a 'proper' Cisco router/firewall, like an 861W, and had 'proper' IPv6 support.
Some good points raised here, particularly around bandwidth, cost, and security concerns.
Here's one more point - wireless networks can be seriously degraded by EM radiation. A datacenter is one of the most challenging RF/EM environments that one could possibly imagine. I would be very surprised if you could get consistently reliable connections, without frame drops. Think of all the EM interference!
Finally, there is constantly a drive within the datacenter for [consistent] low latency. Wireless technologies have higher latency than wired equivalents. Is this technology going to actually be useable?
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017