nanog mailing list archives
Re: Firewall opinions wanted please
From: Rachael Treu <rara () navigo com>
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 11:57:33 -0600
On Wed, Mar 17, 2004 at 08:54:57AM -0800, bill said something to the effect of:
The best option I guess is to figure out how important it is for you to have a firewall,_Everyone_ (network connected) should have a firewall. My grandma should have a firewall. Nicole, holding dominion over this business network and its critical infrastructure, should _definitely_ have a firewall. ;)Why? When did the end2end nature of the Internet suddenly sprout these mutant bits of extra complexity that reduce the overall security of the 'net? Two questions asked, Two answers are sufficent.
Nope. One will do it. The day the first remote exploit or condition, in protocol or application, that could potentially have given rise to such and exploit made it possible for a user not in your control to gain control of your box(en), firewalling became necessary. Then Internet is not exactly end-to-end beyond pure fundamentals; it's more end-to-many-ends. And the notion of "end-to-end" requires preservation of a connection between 2 consenting hosts, and preservation includes securement of that connection against destructive mechanisms, which includes the subversive techniques and intercetptions commonly associated with network security. Denial of Service is as much a threat to availability and network functionality as is power outage if it occurs. Before this turns to a "you security freaks want to screw around with my network and don't care about availability..." Firewalls are logical interventions, costing as little as some processor overhead. Dedicated appliances are only one deployment. Filters on routers also qualify as firewalls. Am I correct in understanding that you feel edge filtering is mutant lunacy and unnecessary complexity? Regarding dedicated firewalls, please see Mr. Bellovin's previous post regarding appropriate and competent administration. The lack thereof presents the complication, not the countermeasure itself. As for your assertion that firewalls "reduce the overall security of the 'net."...can you please elaborate on that, as well? Other factions might/do argue that it's the other team refusing to lock their doors at night that are perpetuating the flux of bad behavior as a close second to the ignorant and infected. --ra -- k. rachael treu, CISSP rara () navigo com ..quis costodiet ipsos custodes?..
--bill
Current thread:
- Re: [NANOG-LIST] RE: Firewall opinions wanted please - clarification, (continued)
- Re: [NANOG-LIST] RE: Firewall opinions wanted please - clarification Brent Van Dussen (Mar 16)
- Re: Firewall opinions wanted please - clarification Brandon Shiers (Mar 16)
- Re: Firewall opinions wanted please - clarification Alexei Roudnev (Mar 16)
- Re: Firewall opinions wanted please - clarification Richard Cox (Mar 16)
- Re: Firewall opinions wanted please Valdis . Kletnieks (Mar 16)
- Re: Firewall opinions wanted please Steven M. Bellovin (Mar 16)
- Re: Firewall opinions wanted please Rachael Treu (Mar 17)
- Re: Firewall opinions wanted please Gregory Taylor (Mar 16)
- Re: Firewall opinions wanted please Rachael Treu (Mar 17)
- Re: Firewall opinions wanted please bill (Mar 17)
- Re: Firewall opinions wanted please Rachael Treu (Mar 17)
- Re: Firewall opinions wanted please Kevin Oberman (Mar 17)
- Re: Firewall opinions wanted please Rachael Treu (Mar 17)
- Re: Firewall opinions wanted please bill (Mar 17)
- Re: Firewall opinions wanted please Alexei Roudnev (Mar 17)
- Re: Firewall opinions wanted please Rachael Treu (Mar 17)
- Re: Firewall opinions wanted please Peter Galbavy (Mar 18)
- Re: Firewall opinions wanted please Rachael Treu (Mar 17)
- Message not available
- Re: Firewall opinions wanted please Rachael Treu (Mar 17)
- Re: Firewall opinions wanted please Eric Gauthier (Mar 17)
- Re: Firewall opinions wanted please Rachael Treu (Mar 17)
- Re: Firewall opinions wanted please Petri Helenius (Mar 17)