From owner-freebsd-questions Mon Jan 31 13:45:46 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from skygod.cns.ksu.edu (skygod.cns.ksu.edu [129.130.61.25]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BE7D150D4 for ; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 13:45:45 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from beemern@ksu.edu) Received: from ksu.edu ([129.130.61.24]) by skygod.cns.ksu.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id QAA59644 for ; Mon, 31 Jan 2000 16:19:39 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from beemern@ksu.edu) Message-ID: <389602D8.AFD9506F@ksu.edu> Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 15:47:04 -0600 From: nathan X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; U; FreeBSD 3.3-RELEASE i386) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG" Subject: Re: berkeley packet filter doesn't work?? References: <3895FD1F.D204FF6E@ksu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > The point of a switch is to prevent data from being sent to machines > that have no need for it. There's no way for bpf to show you packets > that never come down the wire to your machine. so would this then imply that our internal traffic is safe from external hacking? example--> a user logs into our mail server here. authenticates in clear text and gets mail. so that communication could NOT be intercepted then in ANY way from outside the switch?? Thanks again! To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message