I'm sorry I've failed to get my point across to you. Hopefully others have understood what I'm getting across.
I've spent hundreds of hours on PCI for the last 4 years, so yes I am well versed.
From: Nathan Andelin [mailto:nandelin@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2013 4:17 PM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: Re: iSeries public WEB access, PCI security issues
From: Matt Olson
So your logic is still not living up to the intent of the PCI guidelines.
Actually, I'm the only one in this discussion who has referenced the PCI Guidelines. Your only reference was a VMware document. I suppose you posted it because you associate server farms with PCI even though you began this discussion with a denial of that. Most vendors maneuver to convince an audience that they are compatible with PCI. But you're better served by going to the source.
It's because TCP/IP server daemons might be exploited, that I suggest running them under IBM i, which is LESS vulnerable, more stable, and easier to secure. It appears that you are misinterpreting PCI Guidelines.
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l