Security Basics mailing list archives
RE: Firewall and DMZ topology
From: "Storment, Brandon" <Brandon.Storment () wipp ws>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 09:47:04 -0600
I'm comming into this discussion a little late, and have browsed through most of the thread and agree with most of the statements made. Through out my experience in the security field and a vast study of firewalls and dmz's i have come to the conclusion that a tri-homed system (utilizing nat) in the long run is the easiest and cheapest way to go, and i do believe that it is as secure as a two firewall system approach due to the fact of human failure. Meaning having two firewalls with two different rule sets on two diffrent systems will open up a greater risk of human failure within the managing of the systems. Brandon --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Evaluating SSL VPNs' Consider NEOTERIS, chosen as leader by top analysts! The Gartner Group just put Neoteris in the top of its Magic Quadrant, while InStat has confirmed Neoteris as the leader in marketshare. Find out why, and see how you can get plug-n-play secure remote access in about an hour, with no client, server changes, or ongoing maintenance. Visit us at: http://www.neoteris.com/promos/sf-6-9.htm ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current thread:
- RE: nmap for windows, (continued)
- RE: nmap for windows matt (Jun 12)
- Re: nmap for windows Charles Funderburk (Jun 12)
- Re: nmap for windows Dan Tesch (Jun 12)
- Re: nmap for windows Scott Bowlus (Jun 12)
- Re: nmap for windows ~Kevin DavisĀ³ (Jun 12)
- Re: nmap for windows Vic Parat (NSS) (Jun 12)
- RE: nmap for windows Zekeriya Eskiocak (Jun 12)
- Re: nmap for windows Chris Gioran (Jun 12)
- Re: nmap for windows 59cobalt (Jun 12)
- IDS question [was: Re: Firewall and DMZ topology] Steve Bremer (Jun 12)