nanog mailing list archives
Re: Network security on multiple levels (was Re: NYT covers China cyberthreat)
From: Warren Bailey <wbailey () satelliteintelligencegroup com>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 23:16:26 +0000
Contractors with facility clearances? I would find it hard to believe dot gov would run secure circuits to a non secure facility. ;)
From my Android phone on T-Mobile. The first nationwide 4G network.
-------- Original message -------- From: Mike A <mikea () mikea ath cx> Date: 03/12/2013 3:04 PM (GMT-08:00) To: nanog () nanog org Subject: Re: Network security on multiple levels (was Re: NYT covers China cyberthreat) On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 04:41:42PM +0000, Warren Bailey wrote:
Not to mention, the KG units are dot government only.. For obvious reasons.
Erm ... yesandno. Lots of defense contractors have one end of a secured circuit. Been there, installed-and-maintained them. -- Mike Andrews, W5EGO mikea () mikea ath cx Tired old sysadmin
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)