[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: man-in-the-middle

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 18:01:48 +0200, Hans wrote in message 

> On Thursday 07 October 2004 17:20, Sysmin Sys73m47ic wrote:
> > When you find out what they were trying to do please
> > post back. I am very interested to find out what they
> > were trying to accomplish.
> Hi, sorry for my late reply.  Problem is I only got a messages from
> the company's IT (read "can use windows") guy who buggered off
> overseas for an undisclosed period and no one else know what he's up
> to or what this is for.  So I'm in the dark.  I am however objecting
> to it, because besides the obvious legal concerns, the whole thing is
> a bit like using bubblegum to keep a car's engine together.

..more like an aero engine; it's illegal too.
> Either ways, to take a shot at the *why* they might like to do that,
> bandwidth is expensive here and international bandwidth in short
> supply (and depending on your package international bandwidth can be
> expensive too).  So my thinking is that the company has two branches,
> headoffice with a nice leased line,  and a smaller office has an
> internet connection that has limited international bandwidth.  One
> windows box is at the smaller office, one is abroad.  In that case it
> would make sense, because the windows boxen *can* communicate with
> each other directly (because they have publicly routable IPs), but
> it's not desireable, for financial reasons.
> Assuming this is the reason (and I don't know yet), I would move the
> windows box to headoffice, but they obviously have reasons not too.
> Thanks for all the input so far.  I have a fair idea of what I'll have
> to do, will keep you updated.

..Hans, I owe you an apology for taking you for being a script-kiddie
looking for ideas here, reading this thread you can probably see why. 

..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-)
...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry...
  Scenarios always come in sets of three: 
  best case, worst case, and just in case.

Reply to: