Re: SCO 5.0.7 AS FIREWALL

From: Tony Lawrence (foo_at_pcunix.com)
Date: 05/25/05

  • Next message: Jeff Liebermann: "Re: SCO 5.0.7 AS FIREWALL" 
    Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 05:42:36 -0400

    Jeff Liebermann wrote:
    > On Tue, 24 May 2005 17:47:56 -0400, Tony Lawrence <foo@pcunix.com>
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >>My purpose is simply to protect myself from my own stupidity (an
    >>abundant supply of that is always stocked), though it does help that I
    >>can upgrade or temporarily disable any component without worrying much
    >>about what will happen. On the con side, when I do want to let
    >>something in, it becomes a real PITA - but it should be, imho. I had
    >>quite an argument about just this subject recently: see
    >>http://aplawrence.com/Security/valuefirewalls.html
    >
    >
    > Nice article. I consider a minimal hardware firewall to be a basic
    > pre-requisite to being on the internet, even if the benifits are
    > dubious. My office LAN is similar to yours. Double NAT firewall with
    > the important office machines on the inside of the 2nd layer of
    > firewalls. This mess is necessary because I'm constantly bringing
    > customers virus and worm infected machines into the office and don't
    > need them attacking my office servers. However, this is an unusual
    > situation that I would not expect to be popular.
    >
    > Also, firwalls tend to have their own security issues. I suggest
    > running the firewall tests at:
    > http://www.pcflank.com/exploits.htm
    > and see how well you do. My Linksys BEFW11S4v4 hangs on 2 of the
    > tests. My Linksys WRT54gv1.1 with Sveasoft Alchemy firmware, passes
    > all the tests.
    >
    >

    Thanks for that link.

    I still don't agree that the benefits are dubious. My major argument is
    that anyone can screw up - me, the guy who writes the fw firmware, your
    cat, the neighbors dog - we all make mistakes. If the fw people
    accidentally pass port 22 from an address I didn't approve, my sw filter
    rules hopefully still reject it. If I bollixed that or accidentally
    disabled the whole thing, hopefully my ssh config will still protect me.
      If there's some new bug in ssh that nobody knew about, maybe one of my
    pam rules will help me or my snort logging will let another part of my
    defenses kill the session.

    The guy I was arguing with says that I might as well worry about a red
    headed nun with a machine gun bent on my demise, but I don't agree:
    maybe HE doesn't make mistakes, but I sure do, and so do most of the
    people I know. I have no reason to believe that fw engineers or the
    authors of the sw filters etc. are immune to that. 

    -- 
Tony Lawrence
Unix/Linux/Mac OS X  resources: http://aplawrence.com
  • Next message: Jeff Liebermann: "Re: SCO 5.0.7 AS FIREWALL"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: IPS vs. Firewall
      ... the Firewall feature off on my Symantec Client Security software? ... it is really not one of the best ideas you could have to protect ... The op wants to protect a bunch of machines. ...
      (comp.security.firewalls)
    • Re: If you are considering Zone Labs software...
      ... >the same time to protect the machines ... >just using a plain vanilla XP firewall, ...
      (comp.security.firewalls)
    • Re: How much can I trust XP SP2 firewall on its own?
      ... I usually use a broadband router to protect ... >my machines, but I still keep their own personal firewalls activated. ... >the router and to connect one machine directly to the broadband modem. ... >any updates to Windows Firewall. ...
      (comp.security.firewalls)
    • Re: TCP traffic to port 16882
      ... agree.....too many open machines. ... If everybody would protect his/her PC, ... > a local health food store and she told me she has no firewall (what's a ... > firewall?) ...
      (comp.security.firewalls)
    • Re: Norton 2005 Int Security, Trend PCcillin or Zone Alarm ???????
      ... > I want security I can run on both machines. ... System overhead is higher than standard firewall applications. ... Symantec products do not remove (uninstall) well. ... Micro Trends PC-Cillan is very good (possibly the best in home network ...
      (alt.computer.security)