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 12:11:49 +0000
From: Mike A [mailto:mikea () mikea ath cx] On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 04:41:42PM +0000, Warren Bailey wrote:Not to mention, the KG units are dot government only.. For obviousreasons.
Erm ... yesandno. Lots of defense contractors have one end of a secured circuit. Been there, installed-and-maintained them.
They don't belong to us, they're in a secured area inside a secured area (yes, I typed that twice on purpose), and they are regularly inspected by whichever bit of the fed loaned them to us. It's in our facility only as long as the circuit it's servicing exists. 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)