Firewall Wizards mailing list archives
RE: DMZ or not ?
From: "Thomas Crowe" <thomas.crowe () bellsouth net>
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 14:55:19 -0400
If you operate in between the router and the firewall, you lose the stateful inspection capabilities of your firewall. You also lose some other protection like syn flooding detection and prevention. Also unless you have a router guru on staff it is much easier to enforce security polcies on a firewall than a router. Many routers will do many of the functions of a firewall, espc. if you get something like the Cisco IOS firewall feature set, and yes you can even prevent things like syn flooding with a router, but it is a magnitude more diffucult. Thomas Crowe Production Network Systems Administrator BellSouth Online 678-441-7454
-----Original Message----- From: Moore, James [mailto:James.Moore () MSFC NASA GOV] Sent: Friday, October 08, 1999 6:53 PM To: Thomas Crowe; fgb () domain com br; firewall-wizards () nfr net Subject: RE: DMZ or not ? Could someone expand on this advice, and list/explain the additional risks assumed by operating between the router and firewall (as opposed to operating off a third firewall interface)? James Moore-----Original Message----- From: Thomas Crowe [SMTP:thomas.crowe () bellsouth net] Sent: Friday, October 08, 1999 7:29 AM To: fgb () domain com br; firewall-wizards () nfr net Subject: RE: DMZ or not ? That depends a lot on what definition of a DMZ your using! If you mean the classical definition of a DMZ i.e. in between the router andthe firewall*unprotected* except by router acl's, then my advice would be, don't do it, not under any circumstances! (ok maybe one or twocircumstances). If yourreferring to the somewhat more contemporary definition of a DMZ i.e. another interface off your firewall, where as all traffic must stilltraverse thefirewall, then I would say go for it, that way *when* yourpublic machinesget hacked your internal network is still protected, this is good; very good :-). NAT is a good thing but it is security through obscuritywhich isn'tvery secure in and of itself. Just my $0.02 Thomas Crowe Production Network Systems Administrator BellSouth Online 678-441-7454-----Original Message----- From: owner-firewall-wizards () lists nfr net [mailto:owner-firewall-wizards () lists nfr net]On Behalf Of fgb () domain com br Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 1999 9:57 AM To: firewall-wizards () nfr net Subject: DMZ or not ? Hello wizards, Divergences are occurring here im my officce about the use of a DMZ, and I hope the wizards will give me some explanations and/or secure informations about the better implementation. Currently, we're using Linux as a Firewall Box, with a port forwarding to our mail server, that is behind the firewall. We are in way now, to install a public web server and a DNS server. What are de advantages and disadvantages of placing this servers behind the firewall and perform NAT or Port forwarding, instead of using a DMZ ? Which of the options shoud I implement here in my officce, to have a secure site ? Thanks and regards, Fábio Baptista fgb () domain com br
Current thread:
- DMZ or not ? fgb (Oct 06)
- RE: DMZ or not ? Thomas Crowe (Oct 08)
- Re: DMZ or not ? Frederick M Avolio (Oct 12)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: DMZ or not ? Ben Nagy (Oct 12)
- RE: DMZ or not ? Moore, James (Oct 12)
- RE: DMZ or not ? Thomas Crowe (Oct 12)
- RE: DMZ or not ? Mike Coppage (Oct 13)
- RE: DMZ or not ? Thomas Crowe (Oct 16)
- Re: DMZ or not ? Mikael Olsson (Oct 16)
- Re: DMZ or not ? Cristiano Lincoln Mattos (Oct 12)
- RE: DMZ or not ? Harris Raymond D JR CIV AFAA/MSI (Oct 12)
- RE: DMZ or not ? sean . kelly (Oct 12)