[VOIPSEC] ComputerWorld.au: "Enterprises must avoid IP telephony for teleworkers or face attack" - and my response

[Mason Harris]

Dan, i thought your rebuttal in the blog was spot on. Clearly this a
headline aimed at creating paranoia for the uninformed public.

The headline could have just as easily read "Enterprises must avoid
internet access for remote teleworkers or face attack"

Again we need to help educate the general public that all security
controls still apply when connecting your IPTel solution to the internet
(split-tunneling is bad, change default pws, turn off unecessary
servers, etc.)

Sadly we'll probably continue to see this kind of "the sky is falling"
media coverage as teleworker deployments proliferate. Knowledge is power
in this case, i suppose.

cheers,
Mason


dan_york at Mitel.com wrote:
> VOIPSEC readers,
> 
> FYI, ComputerWorld in Australia came out today with the article 
> "Enterprises must avoid IP telephony for teleworkers or face attack" found 
> at:
> 
>   http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php/id;350011373
> 
> Since I use (secure) teleworker phones every day, I was rather annoyed at 
> their headline and wrote this response (since I couldn't comment at 
> ComputerWorld.au):
> 
>  
> http://voipsa.org/blog/2007/03/05/why-computerworldau-is-dead-wrong-about-enterprises-must-avoid-ip-telephony-for-teleworkers-or-face-attack/
> 
> As you would expect, I will naturally talk about this on this week's Blue 
> Box podcast when Jonathan and I record it later this week.
> 
> Given that ComputerWorld.au is an IDG property, I would expect that this 
> article might show up on other IDG websites over the next while.  (PC 
> World, Linux World, Computer World, InfoWorld, NetworkWorld, CIO, CSO, 
> etc.)
> 
> Regards,
> Dan
>