Re: One for the Security Guru's

[Tony Gale <gale@syntax.dstl.gov.uk>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1457 bytes --]

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


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 350 bytes --]