Firewall Wizards mailing list archives
Re: FW-1 technical strength
From: jgalvin () cs loyola edu
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1998 19:39:10 -0500 (EST)
I agree that these settings should be known by knowledgeable administrators, but to issue a security advisory against them is too strong; these settings are useful in some environments. They are also documented as capabilities of the machine, not as bugs. The point that I was trying to make was that maybe the mail on Rule 0 should have been made an fyi, certainly not an advisory. Regards, Jenn
In some email I received from Ryan Russell, sie wrote:Ok, so what's wrong with it?In some ways you could compare the default FW-1 settings with those for SunOS4 and /etc/hosts.equiv. It's the first thing that "anyone in the know" changes, but there's more units sold than "people in the know". Everyone knows they're insecure but the vendor still ships it that way to everyone's disbelief. Darren
Current thread:
- FW-1 technical strength Philip R. Moyer (Dec 18)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: FW-1 technical strength Ryan Russell (Dec 22)
- Re: FW-1 technical strength Darren Reed (Dec 26)
- Re: FW-1 technical strength jgalvin (Dec 28)
- Re: FW-1 technical strength cbrenton (Dec 28)
- Re: FW-1 technical strength Kevin Steves (Dec 28)
- Re: FW-1 technical strength Darren Reed (Dec 26)
- RE: FW-1 technical strength Stout, Bill (Dec 29)