Talk:Network Access Control

Controversy
The controversy section seems to suspiciously lack any controversies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.130.219.209 (talk) 21:19, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute (Technology Neutrality)
This article is far too narrow in its description of NAC. While it is true that one goal of some NAC solutions is to keep insecure or infected endpoints off the LAN, some solutions don't have this aim at all. Some NAC solutions rely on authenticating the user or computer (e.g., to make network access auditable on a per-user/per-machine basis) without any particular eye toward the security of the known endpoint. A University I formerly attended used such a solution -- they authenticated users who accessed their network, but didn't rely on their NAC product to do any policy enforcement. Rather, policy enforcement was done by a desktop anti-virus program installed in a "managed" mode.

72.129.254.72 (talk) 06:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the existing NAC WP entry is unsatisfactory but have decided NOT to engage in a prolonged edit war. However, I have written several posts on that are highly relevant and potentially helpful to anyone who attempts to improve the current article. They are: (1) “Which NAC Are You Talking About?” (http://www.secureaccesscentral.com/wordpress/?p=3), (2) “A Pragmatic Way to Classify NAC Products” (http://www.secureaccesscentral.com/wordpress/?p=4), and (3) a “Peek at Big NAC and Nevis Networks LANenforcer 4.0” (http://www.secureaccesscentral.com/wordpress/?p=58). My perspective has continued to evolve after discussing this controversial and confusing topic with many security professionals. Good Luck!

Resilientone (talk) 16:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Who's going to help clean this up?
As of this afternoon, a substantial fraction of this entire article was a simple list of vendor names.

Wikipedia is not a directory. Wikipedia is not an advertising service. I am sorry if the WP page for NAC is in the top results for NAC on Google, but that is not Wikipedia's problem. This article must remain encyclopedic.

Please consult the following WP rules BEFORE writing about your company on this page:


 * WP:COI lays out the guidelines for writing things you may have a conflict of interest about


 * WP:ISNOT explains what this article should not be


 * WP:N explains what WP considers "notable". Non-notable details belong off the Wikipedia.


 * WP:V explains the standards WP uses to judge sources for content in articles.

--- tqbf 00:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

External link to consultancy
Wikipedia has a policy on external links: WP:EL.

The best way to read that policy is, "Wikipedia is parsimonious with external links".

There is zero chance --- none --- that a link to a VAR/deployment consultancy is going to survive on a page that is already tagged for POV and advertising.

Since I work in the field, and this is the first I've ever heard of the consultancy we're discussing, and a user here seems particularly interested in making sure that consultancy has a link off this article, I'd also like to ask that user to disclose whether they have a relationship with the consultancy they're linking to.

--- tqbf 19:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I am the publisher of Secure Access Central and author of most of the content on the site. The portal has been available free of charge to security professional for several years. I am very well-known in the SSL VPN and NAC space and the web site receives over 600 visitors a day to portal - not a household name but it has a very respectable following (just ask any significant vendor in the NAC space. And I am highly regarded for my objective analysis.

My separate consulting practice does NOT deal in any way deal with the sale, selection, design, deployment of security products; I provide marketing-related consulting to hi-tech management teams in lots of market/technology areas. I also run a non-profit and And assist others. They are all separate activities.

I do NOT understand why you want to exclude the most comprehensive, independent online source for NAC business, market and technical information and do not see any WP policy that I have inadvertently violated. There is no practical way to insert my sites extensive content into your brief NAC article as you recommend. Why do you not solicit this type of user input BEFORE unilaterally deleting what in my humble opinion is a SUBSTANTIAL contribution to the NAC topic? Do you disagree with my views? Or, is something else going on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Resilientone (talk • contribs) 02:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Resilientone (talk) 19:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC) I have read the WP policy on external links and do not believe I have violated it in any way. I offered the link to SAC only because it appeared to be a constructive way to provide substantial practical information about NAC to WP users and it does NOT personally benefit me in any MATERIAL way - less than 0.01% of SAC portal users indicate they learned about the SAC poral from WP. However, my first experience "contributing" to WP has been very eye-opening and disappointing. When I initially submitted the link in June it was challenged and quickly approved after a short discussion about its merit. Now another single and apparently omnipotent individual unilaterally deletes it because he deems it inappropriate per his own sole interpretation of WP policies. He has never even pointed out the SPECIFIC POLICY that has been violated but resorts to general references. This has been a very disturbing, undemocratic and inefficient process that clearly favors the self-righteous and persistent gatekeeper. I wonder how many people who genuinely wanted to help WP users have decided it simply is not worth the effort of "running a gauntlet" imposed by a self-appointed WP expert.


 * Thank you for not re-adding this link to the article. Since you obviously have NAC expertise, maybe you could contribute to the article text? --- tqbf  20:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

75.7.6.244 (talk) 01:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)You must be kidding. Right? Continuing to subject myself to your "heavy-handed authority" would be unbridled masochism. So I will move on to more productive and rewarding matters. Peace be with you. 75.7.10.146 (talk) 00:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC) So let me see if I understand you. It IS appropriate to make a reference to a technical NAC article published on Network World but NOT on Secure Access Central. Is that your position? On what specific basis - defined by WP - do you make this judgment?
 * Network World is a publication, with editors. "Secure Access Central" is a promotional vehicle for a consultancy. --- tqbf  01:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Resilientone (talk) 21:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC) Actually because you refuse to listen to my input or question your own judgments you are wrong once again. Secure Access Central is NOT a promotional vehicle for a consultancy. It is an online analyst portal with thousands of free subscribers. I am the editor and publisher and I spend over 40 hours a week maintaining it. Revenue entirely comes from advertisers. Note: NC articles exist to sell advertising space and other NC marketing programs. If you had asked, you would know that the separate consulting REFERENCED only on my About page is a totally separate endeavor (as I tried to explain once before). AND I have never knowingly obtained ANY management consulting assignment through this portal. Likely because my consulting is not security-specific and I generate it through a large personal biz network! You would also see - if you examined the extensive content on the portal - no signs whatever of soliciting consulting business - other than the brief reference to the other things I do in the About page. No sales pitches. No testimonials. Etc.

You appear quick to pass judgments with little effort to gather facts or reach out to understand this situation. Is this good for WP? Has your behavior and position become based primarily on pride? Cannot simply cannot admit a mistake, apologize and move on? Do you feel this is improving your reputation as a "WP contributor/editor"? Think Again!


 * With all due respect, I have neither the time nor the interest to debate this topic with you, and you've done nothing to convince me; instead, you seem intent on yelling at me, presumably until I cave in and allow you to paste external links to sites you run into the Wikipedia. I'm going to keep deleting these links; they violate WP:EL, which you should read. If you have more questions, consider taking them to WP:HELPDESK. --- tqbf  01:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Er... what is all this rant about? The external link was not that bad (certaintly more comprehensible than the article as it is). If you care to drop the trolling for a bit and consider what is good for this article, I'm restoring the external link.--DustWolf (talk) 13:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Resilientone (talk) 16:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)I just read the message left by tqbf on my Wikipedia page in January. Is this the kind of communication acceptable on Wikipedia. Implied threats and chest-beating rather than well-reasoned dialogue?

"I'm not anonymous; you can look at my user page to find out who I am, and you can follow that up by asking Google, or NEWS.GOOGLE.COM, about me. Consider that in addition to not endearing yourself to Wikipedia, you're also not making a particularly good impression on me --- or on anybody who ever asks me about your business.

If you want to contribute to Wikipedia, contribute to Wikipedia. Improve the content in the NAC article.

--- tqbf 01:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

If people worried what assholes thought about them all the time, they'd be paralyzed into inaction. uʍop ǝpısdn‫‬‭‮‪‫‬‭‮҉ (talk) 15:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Stalker. --- tqbf 17:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Home ISPs?
Is there any evidence of NAC solution vendors proposing that Internet service providers use their NAC products, or has it been limited to use within organizations? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 18:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Bad Reference (log-in for info issue)
one thing in this article I do not like is a reference that requires me to 'sign up' to see more. under the referances number 5 fits this description. When it takes me to the location http://www.fieldtechnologiesonline.com/download.mvc/Mobile-Network-Access-Control-Extending-0001. I find this similar to having a wiki point to lexus/nexus. If I have to sign up I feel that it is not a valid reference. thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.155.154.172 (talk) 03:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Possible merge
I came to read up on network admission methods for NAC systems. I found a couple of things which I tried to clean up a bit. Firstly, there are two articles which would be nice to merge, Network Admission Control and this one. I think that Network Admission Control does not seem to be much different from Network Access Control. Also someone from Netclarity Marketing had some misleading information that Netclarity was the only vendor not to require 802.1x for network access. This appears to be untrue. I tried to balance this. 68.110.6.194 (talk) 16:09, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Hahahahahahah
Props to whoever wrote the "Plain English" section. That was hilarious. I have no idea why the IT industry has become inundated with buzzwords among buzzwords. Jesus Christ. I work in IT and it's getting hard for me to synergize with all the useless and oftentimes conflicting jargon that people want to use to appear or have their technology appear smarter and mystique-ridden

Tutorial: Network Access Control (NAC) Mike Fratto goes to the wrong web page
Hello, I try to follow the web link Tutorial: Network Access Control (NAC) Mike Fratto,. I got error 'Page Not found'. The new link is tutorial-network-access-control-nac/page/1/0 Can you check and improve the web page? Best Regards

--Blamal (talk) 06:38, 28 November 2019 (UTC) Bernard Lamal @: b.lamal@pharmacie-familia.be T: +3283231325