Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote:
> In article <433d99cd@news.uni-ulm.de>, bumens@dingens.org says...
> > > > > Hardware devices are relatively non-complex and
> > > > > are easier to secure, unlike a multipurpose computer.
> > > > This is just nonsense.
> > > It's nonsense to think that a PFW will protect a user that is not fully
> > > aware of how to use/operate it, aware of security threats and the OS in
> > > general, and it's nonsense to think that a simple NAT device - which
> > > requires no configuration for Cable connections is not simple to install
> > > and gain protection from. Even if you have to set one up for DSL, it's
> > > still designed to be installed by a kid and be up and running in
> > > minutes.
> > Yes, and your point being? I claimed that hardware devices in general are
> > _not_ non-complex.
> No, you said it was nonsense.

Yes, I said, that "Hardware devices are relatively non-complex and
are easier to secure, unlike a multipurpose computer" is nonsense,
because I know that in general hardware devices are _not_ non-complex.

Please read the above text again. I changed nothing.

Yours,
VB.
--
MAC-Filtering bringt so viel Schutz vor "Hackern" wie Zeitungspapier vor
einer Atombome. (MAC filtering is protecting against "hackers" like newsprint
is protecting against a nuclear bomb)
- Christian Forler in de.comp.security.misc