Firewall Wizards mailing list archives
Re: PIX assessment
From: Mike Meredith <mike.meredith () port ac uk>
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 08:37:42 +0100
Hi On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 06:43:56 -0700, vulnerable wrote:
static statement permitting this. However, this particular config is declaring transparent static's that the documentation I've read says is unnecessary. Any reasons why they may be doing this? I'm going
It's quite possibly somebody misunderstanding statics, but there is a somewhat sensible reason for including apparently unnecessary statics. If you're likely to include ACLs to allow traffic to the "inside", then having the statics already in place saves making the obvious mistake of not adding the relevant static when you add the ACL. Particularly useful if you end up adding ACLs in a hurry. -- Mike Meredith, Senior Informatics Officer University of Portsmouth: Hostmaster, Postmaster and Security "Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats." Howard Aiken _______________________________________________ firewall-wizards mailing list firewall-wizards () honor icsalabs com http://honor.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards
Current thread:
- PIX assessment vulnerable (Oct 05)
- Re: PIX assessment Nate Itkin (Oct 06)
- RE: PIX assessment Paul Melson (Oct 06)
- Re: PIX assessment Mike Meredith (Oct 12)