OSEC

Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email hr@neohapsis.com
 
Subject: Re: 8 hours of pinging
From: Ed Padin (epadinWAGWEB.COM)
Date: Wed Mar 29 2000 - 11:11:42 CST

>
>
><soapboxmode=on>
>
>Well your customer is quite lame.
>
>Blocking napster and application blocking in general
>are infringements of user's rights. One ot these days
>companies will understand that owning the computers
>is not tantamount to owning the users. Think of the
>internet as any other telephone/comm-device.
>Because you own the phone doesn't mean you
>can dictate to me what I can and can't say over it.
>And everyone has the right to make at least one
>phone call... :-) I left the last place that tried to
>filter my communications.... and if your company
>does this, you should think about leaving too.
>
>So I repeat, trying to block napster is very lame and will
>only accelerate the development of better, and more
>dangerous to the RIAA, software... check out the
>coverage of gnutella...
>
>You've been warned.
>
><soapboxmode=off>

<devil's advocate>
Well, the other side of that argument is "Pay for your own bandwidth and you
can do what you damned well please with it.". Napster introduces legal
liabilities, security issues and bandwidth issues. It also fills up the
firewall logs with all the ping messages it generates. If it wasn't for
these issues I doubt that they would care. They don't really watch which
sites people visit. It only came to their attention because the firewall was
bitching about pings and bandwidth (They watch it for capacity planning.).
The jury is also still out on wether people should be trading Led Zeppelin
albums. It goes along the same lines as a company not allowing pirated
software.
</devil's advocate>

I can see your point, tho. I personally think it's better for a company to
make employee bahavior a matter of policy not _enforcement_. It creates a
shitty gestapo-like work environment.

BTW: What's "RIAA" ?

ABTW: Thanks for the info below.

>
>On the other hand with the exploitable remote
>buffer overflow, mayble a good napster block
>isn't such a bad thing...
>
>With that said... here is the info you need...

snipped