lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Oct]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: One for the Security Guru's
From
Date
On Thu, 2002-10-24 at 10:38, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
> Gerhard Mack <gmack@innerfire.net> writes:
>
> >Actually at the place that just went bankrupt on me I had a Security
> >consultant complain that 2 of my servers were outside the firewall. He
> >recommended that I get a firewall just for those 2 servers but backed off
> >when I pointed out that I would need to open all of the same ports that
> >are open on the server anyways so the vulnerability isn't any less with
> >the firewall.
>
> So you should've bought a more expensive firewall that offers protocol
> based forwarding instead of being a simple packet filter.
>
> packet filter != firewall. That's the main lie behind most of the
> "Linux based" firewalls.
>
> Get the real thing. Checkpoint. PIX. But that's a little
> more expensive than "xxx firewall based on Linux".
>

Thats not entirely accurate, or fair. A packet filter is a type of
Firewall (or can be). A Firewall is a means to implement a security
policy, usually specifically a network access policy. A Packet Filter,
including a ""Linux based" firewall" is a perfectly acceptable means of
achieving that goal, if it meets the policy requirements.

Ref. http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/800-10/ (over 7 years
old, but still highly relevant).

Most commercial firewalls are very bad at protecting servers offering
Internet services, they aren't designed to do it.

-tony

[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:30    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans