Re: Security of VS-NAT versus VS-DR ?

[Joseph Mack <mack.joseph@xxxxxxx>]

Peter Mueller wrote:

> Apologies to the list, I certainly didn't mean to imply LVS was 'bad code'
> or insecure, and I think it might have come out that way.  (I think LVS
> kicks ass!)

well LVS hasn't made many claims to being secure. There is code
for handling some DoS attacks, but security is setup separately
from LVS.

Joe
-- 
Joseph Mack PhD, Senior Systems Engineer, Lockheed Martin
contractor to the National Environmental Supercomputer Center, 
mailto:mack.joseph@xxxxxxx ph# 919-541-0007, RTP, NC, USA