Something like this, perhaps?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSZUaCNX_ZA
33 publicly visible posts • joined 18 Jan 2012
What about a compensating control? You know that a system is vulnerable, and the risk of patching outweighs the [quantitively measured] risk of compromise, but you put in place a compensating control that mitigates the problem temporarily until a patch can be applied. IDS/IPS anyone? Snort SIDs 41818 & 41819 were available from March.
The difference is that for a DECT phone is that you rarely (if ever) put it in your pocket and go out for a walk. That's why slimmer is considered better for a mobile.
"The problem today is that all the manufacturers are focussed on bringing out essentially the same product." - this I couldn't agree more with.
This was immortalised a bit over 20 years ago in RFC1925 - The Twelve Networking Truths
(12) In protocol design, perfection has been reached not when there
is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take
away.
So, what they are saying is that, given physical access, someone with a specially crafted USB key can cause a denial of service. What about just pulling the power cord? Denial of service achieved, and much less time-consuming than going to the lengths of creating that magic USB key.
This looks like marketing puff. There is absolutely no content on the MGBase-T Alliance website - could this just be a PR exercise, whilst the real action happens elsewhere?
Is this just a ruse to distract people from where the real action is? There is also the NBase-T Alliance, which purports to do the same thing - deliver 2.5Gbps and 5Gbps over twisted pair. This is backed up by actual work being done at the IEEE - and was reported on by The Reg: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/11/ieee_turns_crank_on_new_wired_ethernet_standards/
Methinks the MGBase-T Alliance are bandwagon jumpers.
"...get a 2-blade chassis, a router blade and a 24-port switch blade." Cisco are years ahead of you. They have this now: get a Integrated Services Router, with 24 port PoE switch blade. And firewall. And IP PBX. And voicemail. And WAN acceleration. And a mini-server-on-a-blade.
What nonsense. I agree that devices running iOS are closed, but have you ever actually used Mac OS X? Do you not realise that it's a UNIX-based operating system, and just by opening Terminal you have access to the real 'guts' of the machine, far more so than a Windows PC? Yes, a lot of Mac users are computer-illiterate, but most of the developers/admins/engineers that I know use Macs, for the very reason that it's a UNIX-like operating system.
"How can this possibly be cheaper than setting up the traditional pneumatic cross-lane traffic counters?"
Tracking mobiles enables you to get information about the whole journey that was taken. Getting the same info using pneumatic cross-lane traffic counters would mean that every road would need to have them - surelt that's got to be more expensive?
Just one change to NAT syntax - around the 8.2/8.3 software releases - that's a long way from 'each ASA F/W upgrade'.
FWIW, configuring NAT on Cisco ASAs is now loads easier than it was before.
After seeing the bad joke that is Cisco's latest 'CX' update to their ASA platform
The 'CX' bit is pretty good, crappy management notwithstanding.
Well said (except for the 'dispair' bit). And how many commentors actually read the NCAP article in question? I reckon none, given the ignorance of some of the comments on here.
Personally, I would like to see more of the details and statistics and think about it, rather than coming to a knee-jerk reaction approx. 8 seconds after reading a 300 word Reg article. I reckon that the folk at Euro NCAP have given it a lot more thought than *everyone* reading this article.
1Password on the two different computers (and one smartphone) that I own, with the encrypted password repository stored on DropBox. Easy synchronisation of password info on all computers, and all of my web accounts have secure, random passwords.
Until there is low-cost, universal multi-factor authentication available, we are stuck with passwords :(
Sorry chap, but the RV220W is not a 'real' Cisco product. Says Cisco on the box, but this is a continuation of the product development done by Linksys previously. Designed as an easy-to-use (i.e. graphical user interface) product, and not a 'proper' network device.
For less than £100 more, you could have bought a 'proper' Cisco router/firewall, like an 861W, and had 'proper' IPv6 support.
Some good points raised here, particularly around bandwidth, cost, and security concerns.
Here's one more point - wireless networks can be seriously degraded by EM radiation. A datacenter is one of the most challenging RF/EM environments that one could possibly imagine. I would be very surprised if you could get consistently reliable connections, without frame drops. Think of all the EM interference!
Finally, there is constantly a drive within the datacenter for [consistent] low latency. Wireless technologies have higher latency than wired equivalents. Is this technology going to actually be useable?