[Info-vax] "Linux Shminux - IPsec is Snake Oil!" VMS Mgmnt

[Bill Pechter]

In article <74hrasF12o3uvU1 at mid.individual.net>,
Bill Gunshannon <billg999 at cs.uofs.edu> wrote:
>In article <176uZD2KcidF-pn2-Ng1UCvMHmXDL at rikki.tavi.co.uk>,
>	"Bob Eager" <rde42 at spamcop.net> writes:
>> On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 18:04:22 UTC, JF Mezei 
>> <jfmezei.spamnot at vaxination.ca> wrote:
>> 
>>> Bob Eager wrote:
>>> 
>>> > Maybe. Mine is the opposite. Everything has a public IP address.
>>> 
>>> There is nothing wrong with feeling at ease with being exposed to the
>>> world, borderline exhibitionist...
>> 
>> If I were exposed to the world, I'd be worried...NAT is not a universal 
>> panecea.
>
>Yeah, but it is amazing how many people think it is some kind of a
>security system.  There are many ways to get past a NATed system.
>
>> 
>>> NAT routers really provide 2 functions: the NAT and a firewall function.
>>> 
>>> Just because you go IPv6 and no longer need NAT doesn't mean that your
>>> router will lose its firewall capabilities. In fact, they should be
>>> augmented.
>> 
>> I agree. And my firewall is a dedicated machine, not just the stuff in a
>> cheap router.
>
>As it shoudl be.  And not just a linux box pretending to be a firewall.
>
>bill
>-- 
>Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolves
>billg999 at cs.scranton.edu |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
>University of Scranton   |
>Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>   

Ok Bill.  I have to ask.  Why not.


What's a PIX got that IPCop or Smoothwall don't have?
What's not available in iptables or FreeBSD's pf...

Bill

Inquiring minds want to know...

-- 
-- 
Digital had it then.  Don't you wish you could buy it now!
              pechter-at-pechter.dyndns.org