Re: SCO 5.0.7 AS FIREWALL

From: pablo hernandez (pablo_at_crecat.com)
Date: 05/24/05 

Date: 24 May 2005 13:37:37 -0700

Jean-Pierre Radley <jpr@jpr.com> wrote in message news:<20050523205840.GC14018@jpradley.jpr.com>...
> pablo hernandez typed (on Mon, May 23, 2005 at 01:28:26PM -0700):
> | "Mainak Yajnik" <yajnikmp@gmail.com> wrote in message news:<1116860194.547203.244810@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>...
> | > Dear Group:
> | >
> | > In my last thread I was unable to configure the box acting as router.
> | > Well with the groups help I was able to do the needful.
> | >
> | > A special Thanx to Mr. Tony (aplawrance.com) & JP for helping me achive
> | > my target.
> | >
> | > Apprently I found my server is accessible from Internet and is security
> | > hazard for my organisation.
> | >
> | > I want to block Telnet on the server. I have already configured SSH and
> | > is working fine.
> | >
> | > I also want to have the server to give me secure ftp login.
> | >
> | > My current Security setting of SCO box is set to Traditional.
> | >
> | >
> | > Mainak
> |
> | In my opinion is better to install a hardware firewall like zysell on
> | the WAN side , then is easy to configure it to only access some
> | services.
>
> Why is it any harder than doing it with ipf?

In my humble opinion , an external wall cuts all WAN activity , but
host can still serve the LAN .
On the conceptual side , an externall wall is better thatn joining the
wall and castel .

but this is only my humble opinion

Relevant Pages