RE: what should I do when....

["William Mohney" <William.Mohney () chickasaw com>]

No one tool protects "enough".  That's why we use all the tools.

Bill  


-----Original Message-----
From: listbounce () securityfocus com [mailto:listbounce () securityfocus com]
On Behalf Of Adriel Desautels
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 9:14 AM
To: Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers
Cc: security-basics () securityfocus com
Subject: Re: what should I do when....

Ansgar,
        You are right, I am wrong. A firewall is not a traffic shaping
device 
and I was using the wrong terminology (which doesn't happen very often, 
but its somewhat refreshing when it does and I'm corrected).

        I do stand by my *opinion* that a firewall is not a security
device but 
is a traffic control device. My opinion can be contradicted as the 
definition of security is to protect from harm, and firewalls do protect

some systems from harm. That is not enough to make me change my mind 
though. Firewalls do not protect *enough* and are easy enough to 
circumvent.

Regards,
        Adriel T. Desautels
        Chief Technology Officer
        Netragard, LLC.
        Office : 617-934-0269
        Mobile : 617-633-3821
        http://www.linkedin.com/pub/1/118/a45

        Join the Netragard, LLC. Linked In Group:
        http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/48683/0B98E1705142

---------------------------------------------------------------
Netragard, LLC - http://www.netragard.com  -  "We make IT Safe"
Penetration Testing, Vulnerability Assessments, Website Security

Netragard Whitepaper Downloads:
-------------------------------
Choosing the right provider : http://tinyurl.com/2ahk3j
Three Things you must know  : http://tinyurl.com/26pjsn


Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers wrote:
> On 2008-07-10 Adriel Desautels wrote:
> > What I said is not wrong, it is actually very accurate.
>
> No.
>
> > Firewalls are traffic shaping devices and it is my opinion that they
> > are not security devices. In fact, I'm not sure what you disagree
> > with.
>
> Look up the definition of "traffic shaping" (e.g. [1]). Look up the
> definition of "firewall" (e.g. [2]). Notice the difference.
>
> > I said:
> >
> > "It is my opinion that firewalls are not security devices as much as
> > they are traffic shaping devices. Their job is to control network
> > connections and the flow of traffic, not to ensure that something
> > can't be hacked."
> >
> > You accused me of being wrong, but then you said:
> >
> > "A firewall is the implementation of a concept of what kind of
traffic 
> > you want to allow or disallow between any two given networks."
> >
> > Isn't that what I said?
>
> No.
>
> > You are in fact shaping traffic by controlling what goes in and out.
I
> > suppose my use of the term "Traffic Shaping" could be argued.
>
> No.
>
> Firewalls accept or deny access based on their ruleset. Traffic
shaping
> devices don't decide whether to accept or deny anything, but modify
> packet rates in order to optimize network performance and/or bandwidth
> usage. Two entirely different concepts, using different means to
achieve
> different ends.
>
> > I do think that firewalls can be used to enforce certain policies
that
> > are security oriented, but firewalls are not in my opinion security
> > devices.
>
> Then your opinion is wrong. Plain and simple.
>
> The decision what you want to allow or disallow into or out of your
> network is by any means a security decision. Firewalls implement and
> enforce this decision on a technical level and therefore are by
> definition security devices.
>
> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_shaping
> [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firewall
>
> Regards
> Ansgar Wiechers