Re: The Death Of A Firewall

[Victor Williams <vbwilliams () neb rr com>]

I think it's misleading.

The article is titled "The Death Of A Firewall".  Yet, in the fourth 
paragraph, "By defining simple ACLs, we further isolate our backend 
servers."

The word *firewall* is just another way to say ACL.  But firewall has 
somehow morphed into this word meaning that some *hardware device* needs 
to be sitting between us and cruel world.

They should have titled the article "The Death of the single-function 
hardware firewall appliance".  Even so, I thought the content was pretty 
worthless.  Any administrator worth their salt knows that the firewall 
is only a step in the total security of a solution.  What the article 
described is something that people have already been doing when building 
new application networks.  Until very recently, you couldn't do any 
*stateful* ACLs with as many OS'es or network devices.  Now that has 
changed for the better I believe.

The firewall as the be-all/end-all appliance has been dead for years. 
Why did we need someone to write an article that basically described 
best-practices like it's some revelation?



James Paterson wrote:
> http://www.securitypipeline.com/165700439
>
> Be interesting to get the communities take on this article.
>
> _______________________________________________
> firewall-wizards mailing list
> firewall-wizards () honor icsalabs com
> http://honor.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards

_______________________________________________
firewall-wizards mailing list
firewall-wizards () honor icsalabs com
http://honor.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards