nanog mailing list archives
RE: Network security on multiple levels (was Re: NYT covers China cyberthreat)
From: Jamie Bowden <jamie () photon com>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 12:14:39 +0000
From: Shrdlu [mailto:shrdlu () deaddrop org] On 3/12/2013 4:16 PM, Warren Bailey wrote:Contractors with facility clearances? I would find it hard to believe dot gov would run secure circuits to a non secure facility. ;)The word "Contractor" is usually used to refer to anyone that has a contract to do work with the government. Having spent nearly my entire working life in those situations, I can absolutely and completely guarantee that this type of circuit is common, that the types of phones referred to are commonplace in such an environment, and that I have used such phones in the course of a normal day.
STU / STE units are not KGs. Different type of equipment. Far less functional and single purpose. Jamie
Current thread:
- Re: Network security on multiple levels (was Re: NYT covers China cyberthreat) Mike A (Mar 12)
- Re: Network security on multiple levels (was Re: NYT covers China cyberthreat) Warren Bailey (Mar 12)
- Re: Network security on multiple levels (was Re: NYT covers China cyberthreat) Shrdlu (Mar 12)
- RE: Network security on multiple levels (was Re: NYT covers China cyberthreat) Jamie Bowden (Mar 13)
- Re: Network security on multiple levels (was Re: NYT covers China cyberthreat) Shrdlu (Mar 12)
- RE: Network security on multiple levels (was Re: NYT covers China cyberthreat) Jamie Bowden (Mar 13)
- Re: Network security on multiple levels (was Re: NYT covers China cyberthreat) Warren Bailey (Mar 12)