BLU Discuss list archive
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Discuss] External security Re: one vs many static IP addresses
- Subject: [Discuss] External security Re: one vs many static IP addresses
- From: richard.pieri at gmail.com (Rich Pieri)
- Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2016 14:01:54 -0500
- In-reply-to: <CADdM39wM+c0eKwaGh+FfCJrZjxGqqAOLOvir+9h7kz3Uc9AQeA@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <7ccf04c0d9a7ff787df11537ee5e162f.squirrel@webmail.ci.net> <568AB9F6.1020308@gmail.com> <CADdM39wM+c0eKwaGh+FfCJrZjxGqqAOLOvir+9h7kz3Uc9AQeA@mail.gmail.com>
On 1/4/2016 1:39 PM, Drew Van Zandt wrote: > If you have console access, removing power, cutting the Ethernet cable, or > applying a hammer may also be effective. Satisfying as it may be, one would argue that permanent physical damage or destruction does not constitute /properly/ securing the site. :) -- Rich P.
- Follow-Ups:
- [Discuss] External security Re: one vs many static IP addresses
- From: drew.vanzandt at gmail.com (Drew Van Zandt)
- [Discuss] External security Re: one vs many static IP addresses
- References:
- [Discuss] External security Re: one vs many static IP addresses
- From: richb at pioneer.ci.net (Rich Braun)
- [Discuss] External security Re: one vs many static IP addresses
- From: richard.pieri at gmail.com (Rich Pieri)
- [Discuss] External security Re: one vs many static IP addresses
- From: drew.vanzandt at gmail.com (Drew Van Zandt)
- [Discuss] External security Re: one vs many static IP addresses
- Prev by Date: [Discuss] External security Re: one vs many static IP addresses
- Next by Date: [Discuss] External security Re: one vs many static IP addresses
- Previous by thread: [Discuss] External security Re: one vs many static IP addresses
- Next by thread: [Discuss] External security Re: one vs many static IP addresses
- Index(es):