<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: 802.1x &amp; NAC Observation</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.infosecpodcast.com/2006/10/8021x-nac-observation/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.infosecpodcast.com/2006/10/8021x-nac-observation/</link>
	<description>Information Security related news, opinions and ramblings</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 May 2009 17:22:17 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Chris Harrington</title>
		<link>http://www.infosecpodcast.com/2006/10/8021x-nac-observation/comment-page-1/#comment-564</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris Harrington</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Oct 2006 03:31:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.infosecpodcast.com/nac/2006/10/8021x-nac-observation/#comment-564</guid>
		<description>Alan - Thanks for the note. I am definitely not defending their behaviour. You can&#039;t criticize one one method and then hype a solution that is marginally better, especially using that venue. The point I was making is that I understand why people develop and market solutions using lesser technologies. I think there may be times when for what ever reason (simplicity, cost, etc.)a non-802.1x solution may be a valid option.

Thanks for the clarification on MS NAP using IPSec. I was not aware of it.

--Chris</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Alan &#8211; Thanks for the note. I am definitely not defending their behaviour. You can&#8217;t criticize one one method and then hype a solution that is marginally better, especially using that venue. The point I was making is that I understand why people develop and market solutions using lesser technologies. I think there may be times when for what ever reason (simplicity, cost, etc.)a non-802.1x solution may be a valid option.</p>
<p>Thanks for the clarification on MS NAP using IPSec. I was not aware of it.</p>
<p>&#8211;Chris</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: StillSecure, After All These Years</title>
		<link>http://www.infosecpodcast.com/2006/10/8021x-nac-observation/comment-page-1/#comment-563</link>
		<dc:creator>StillSecure, After All These Years</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Oct 2006 02:01:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.infosecpodcast.com/nac/2006/10/8021x-nac-observation/#comment-563</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;There is more than one way to skin a NAC...&lt;/strong&gt;

...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>There is more than one way to skin a NAC&#8230;</strong></p>
<p>&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alan Shimel</title>
		<link>http://www.infosecpodcast.com/2006/10/8021x-nac-observation/comment-page-1/#comment-562</link>
		<dc:creator>Alan Shimel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Oct 2006 01:48:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.infosecpodcast.com/nac/2006/10/8021x-nac-observation/#comment-562</guid>
		<description>Chris - I half agree with you and half disagree.  The biggest thing though is you are coming in half way through this.  I did not go up in front of the world at Black Hat and present how all the other NAC solutions could be bypassed and then come out with one that is at best no better.  I am going to more fully respond to this on my blog at http;//www.stillsecureafteralltheseyears.com</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Chris &#8211; I half agree with you and half disagree.  The biggest thing though is you are coming in half way through this.  I did not go up in front of the world at Black Hat and present how all the other NAC solutions could be bypassed and then come out with one that is at best no better.  I am going to more fully respond to this on my blog at http;//www.stillsecureafteralltheseyears.com</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.659 seconds -->
