<?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: Why Bezeq Int SafeNet Service is Useless</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.rec-sec.com/2009/10/16/bezeq-int-safenet-sucks/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.rec-sec.com/2009/10/16/bezeq-int-safenet-sucks/</link>
	<description>a non-profit information security web site authored by Moshe Ben Abu (Trancer), focusing on vulnerability research, exploit development (mainly for the Metasploit Framework), web application security, information security and hacking news from around the world.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Jul 2010 17:11:36 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://www.rec-sec.com</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<atom:link rel="hub" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com" />
	<atom:link rel="hub" href="http://superfeedr.com/hubbub" />
		<item>
		<title>By: Boris Shtrasman</title>
		<link>http://www.rec-sec.com/2009/10/16/bezeq-int-safenet-sucks/comment-page-1/#comment-1651</link>
		<dc:creator>Boris Shtrasman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Apr 2010 07:20:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rec-sec.com/?p=781#comment-1651</guid>
		<description>(Hebrew) sort of trackback - http://myrtfm.blogspot.com/2010/03/safenet.html</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>(Hebrew) sort of trackback &#8211; <a href="http://myrtfm.blogspot.com/2010/03/safenet.html" rel="nofollow">http://myrtfm.blogspot.com/2010/03/safenet.html</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Trancer</title>
		<link>http://www.rec-sec.com/2009/10/16/bezeq-int-safenet-sucks/comment-page-1/#comment-1202</link>
		<dc:creator>Trancer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Oct 2009 00:24:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rec-sec.com/?p=781#comment-1202</guid>
		<description>@iTK98
But they are making profit of it, and lying to customers about the service.
The law offer document is very vague and non-technical (http://my.ynet.co.il/pic/computers/atarim281009.rtf), it&#039;ll be interesting to see  what the ISP&#039;s will offer their customers now...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@iTK98<br />
But they are making profit of it, and lying to customers about the service.<br />
The law offer document is very vague and non-technical (<a href="http://my.ynet.co.il/pic/computers/atarim281009.rtf" rel="nofollow">http://my.ynet.co.il/pic/computers/atarim281009.rtf</a>), it&#8217;ll be interesting to see  what the ISP&#8217;s will offer their customers now&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: iTK98</title>
		<link>http://www.rec-sec.com/2009/10/16/bezeq-int-safenet-sucks/comment-page-1/#comment-1201</link>
		<dc:creator>iTK98</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:25:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rec-sec.com/?p=781#comment-1201</guid>
		<description>@Trancer
I just say they&#039;re doing it because they have to, not because they
can make a real profit out of it (and better their service as they
pay back what they invest). In this model of work they have no profit.

From today: 
Read the fallowing article, http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3796821,00.html

I guess the previous request was from the &quot;Communication office&quot; and 
this one is from the Government itself. I believe that if the government want
to do something about it, they could make a dedicated (with active
filter to disallow porn etc) DNS server that citizens could use.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Trancer<br />
I just say they&#8217;re doing it because they have to, not because they<br />
can make a real profit out of it (and better their service as they<br />
pay back what they invest). In this model of work they have no profit.</p>
<p>From today:<br />
Read the fallowing article, <a href="http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3796821,00.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3796821,00.html</a></p>
<p>I guess the previous request was from the &#8220;Communication office&#8221; and<br />
this one is from the Government itself. I believe that if the government want<br />
to do something about it, they could make a dedicated (with active<br />
filter to disallow porn etc) DNS server that citizens could use.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: zEt</title>
		<link>http://www.rec-sec.com/2009/10/16/bezeq-int-safenet-sucks/comment-page-1/#comment-1200</link>
		<dc:creator>zEt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Oct 2009 20:14:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rec-sec.com/?p=781#comment-1200</guid>
		<description>alcohol and gambling? lmao.
Bezeq...no need to add a word.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>alcohol and gambling? lmao.<br />
Bezeq&#8230;no need to add a word.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Trancer</title>
		<link>http://www.rec-sec.com/2009/10/16/bezeq-int-safenet-sucks/comment-page-1/#comment-1199</link>
		<dc:creator>Trancer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:16:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rec-sec.com/?p=781#comment-1199</guid>
		<description>@Johnny If only anyone had the time :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Johnny If only anyone had the time :)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Trancer</title>
		<link>http://www.rec-sec.com/2009/10/16/bezeq-int-safenet-sucks/comment-page-1/#comment-1198</link>
		<dc:creator>Trancer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:13:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rec-sec.com/?p=781#comment-1198</guid>
		<description>@iTK98 Following the dry law and provide such service, even if it&#039;s very basic is one thing... But lying to customers is not the way to do that...

The TOS is unreachable yeah, saw that. I don&#039;t know why :P</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@iTK98 Following the dry law and provide such service, even if it&#8217;s very basic is one thing&#8230; But lying to customers is not the way to do that&#8230;</p>
<p>The TOS is unreachable yeah, saw that. I don&#8217;t know why :P</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: iTK98</title>
		<link>http://www.rec-sec.com/2009/10/16/bezeq-int-safenet-sucks/comment-page-1/#comment-1197</link>
		<dc:creator>iTK98</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Oct 2009 18:35:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rec-sec.com/?p=781#comment-1197</guid>
		<description>As far as I know all ISPs in Israel have to offer
&#039;content filter&#039; product to their users - BY LAW.

I guess Bezeq-int just fallowing the law and not
trying to do beyond it. Like most Companies in
Israel.

BTW, the TOS of SafeNet isn&#039;t accessible, what&#039;s
the deal?!

http://www.bezeqint.net/Media/safenet.doc</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As far as I know all ISPs in Israel have to offer<br />
&#8216;content filter&#8217; product to their users &#8211; BY LAW.</p>
<p>I guess Bezeq-int just fallowing the law and not<br />
trying to do beyond it. Like most Companies in<br />
Israel.</p>
<p>BTW, the TOS of SafeNet isn&#8217;t accessible, what&#8217;s<br />
the deal?!</p>
<p><a href="http://www.bezeqint.net/Media/safenet.doc" rel="nofollow">http://www.bezeqint.net/Media/safenet.doc</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Johnny</title>
		<link>http://www.rec-sec.com/2009/10/16/bezeq-int-safenet-sucks/comment-page-1/#comment-1193</link>
		<dc:creator>Johnny</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Oct 2009 12:28:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rec-sec.com/?p=781#comment-1193</guid>
		<description>&quot;Less work, more money.. they?re working like any profitable company&quot;

Well, there is a line that shouldnt be crossed. there is a difference between a shitty product to a complete fraud... In this case I think that there is a cause for bringing a class action against Bezeq. If only one had the time... :)

Nice one.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Less work, more money.. they?re working like any profitable company&#8221;</p>
<p>Well, there is a line that shouldnt be crossed. there is a difference between a shitty product to a complete fraud&#8230; In this case I think that there is a cause for bringing a class action against Bezeq. If only one had the time&#8230; :)</p>
<p>Nice one.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tweets that mention Recognize-Security -- Topsy.com</title>
		<link>http://www.rec-sec.com/2009/10/16/bezeq-int-safenet-sucks/comment-page-1/#comment-1192</link>
		<dc:creator>Tweets that mention Recognize-Security -- Topsy.com</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 18 Oct 2009 18:16:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rec-sec.com/?p=781#comment-1192</guid>
		<description>[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Moshe Ben Abu, Moshe Ben Abu. Moshe Ben Abu said: RT @rec_sec Post: Why Bezeq Int SafeNet Service Sucks http://bit.ly/1swdYv [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Moshe Ben Abu, Moshe Ben Abu. Moshe Ben Abu said: RT @rec_sec Post: Why Bezeq Int SafeNet Service Sucks <a href="http://bit.ly/1swdYv" rel="nofollow">http://bit.ly/1swdYv</a> [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: L[s]D</title>
		<link>http://www.rec-sec.com/2009/10/16/bezeq-int-safenet-sucks/comment-page-1/#comment-1191</link>
		<dc:creator>L[s]D</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 Oct 2009 21:47:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rec-sec.com/?p=781#comment-1191</guid>
		<description>Less work, more money.. they&#039;re working like any profitable company.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Less work, more money.. they&#8217;re working like any profitable company.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
