Re: Secure Computing Sidewinder?

[ArkanoiD <ark () eltex net>]

No, being "application layer proxy" means there is no such thing as
a packet for the inspection engine. It means the firewall terminates
tcp session by itself and starts new one on the behalf of client.
So it does not matter how data is distributed among packets.

And it is still useful even if you do not have up to date signature database
of "known bad things". With Sidewinder, you do, however.

On Sun, Jun 08, 2008 at 11:23:49AM +0100, Paul Hutchings wrote:
> I know both ISA and Sidewinder are "Application Layer" firewalls and  
> act as proxies etc. but I'm struggling to get my head around why one  
> might be "better" than the other, I guess I'm a little unclear on  
> exactly what "Application Layer" means tbh despite reading various  
> definitions?
>
> My understanding with the Sidewinder is that the proxies receive each  
> packet, tear it apart, inspects it, and then depending on the  
> protocol it drops/discards anything that is dangerous, and in the  
> case of safe content rewrites the packet and makes the connection  
> itself it so that the source machine never connects directly to the  
> destination, rather the connection always terminates at the  
> Sidewinder, which makes the connection on its behalf?
>
> I'm also struggling to understand how useful an application layer  
> firewall is when it seemingly is never updated i.e. Microsoft ISA  
> server?
>
> Our requirements are pretty simple I would imagine:
>
> We want to let traffic out, with the source being restricted by IP  
> address or Active Directory user.  Mostly standard protocols such as  
> dns/smtp/http/https/ftp where we would expect all traffic to conform  
> to the protocol.  In some instances we'll need to open port X to  
> destination Y and would want to simply allow traffic to pass and  
> wouldn't expect a firewall to know what the traffic is as it will be  
> something unique to an application that we're using.
>
> We want to allow smtp in, as well as a few specific internal websites  
> such as Outlook Web Access etc. which use HTTPS.
>
> I'd appreciate any input on the specifics of how the two products  
> differ and how one might be considered "better" than the other both  
> in terms of bottom line security, and our requirements.
>
> cheers,
> Paul
> _______________________________________________
> firewall-wizards mailing list
> firewall-wizards () listserv icsalabs com
> https://listserv.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards
>
> email protected and scanned by AdvascanTM - keeping email useful - 
> www.advascan.com 

_______________________________________________
firewall-wizards mailing list
firewall-wizards () listserv icsalabs com
https://listserv.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards