Anybody doing a "Code Green" for 1434?

Mon Jan 27 06:03:10 UTC 2003

On Mon, 27 Jan 2003 00:35:19 EST, "Stewart, William C (Bill), SALES" <billstewart at att.com>  said:

> Even if people don't want to run it on the open internet,
> due to concerns about appropriateness of reverse hacking,
> it might be useful for inside-the-firewall cleanup 
> for corporations that get hit.

It's inappropriate inside a corporation for the same reason it's not
right for the open internet.

But hey, if you don't wanna get paid this time around because somebody
installed a patch that rebooted the payroll server and it didn't come back..
Well.. it's your paycheck, not mine.

I mean.. really.  if a company needs a "code green" tool to clean up after this
for their own internal stuff, the right answer isn't code green, the right
answer is outsourcing their IT to someplace that has a clue.

-- 
				Valdis Kletnieks
				Computer Systems Senior Engineer
				Virginia Tech

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 226 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20030127/c74a4ecd/attachment.sig>