|
Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email hr@neohapsis.com |
Subject: Re: "new" protocols vs. firewalls & firewall adminis{trators|tration} ?
From: Jeffery.Gieser
minnesotamutual.comDate: Fri Dec 29 2000 - 08:26:08 CST
- Next message: Andrew Lawrence: "Cisco router problem"
- Previous message: opie san: "RE: Stupid Checkpoint Firewall-1 Question"
- Maybe in reply to: Jeff.Hodges
kingsmountain.com: ""new" protocols vs. firewalls & firewall adminis{trators|tration} ?"
- Maybe reply: Jeffery.Gieser
minnesotamutual.com: "Re: "new" protocols vs. firewalls & firewall adminis{trators|tration} ?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jeff,
The real issue is not whether or not it runs on one port although that is
much easier for a firewall admin. The issue is whether or not the
protocol, itself, is secure and is there a reasonably good proxy for that
protocol to enforce the rules the protocol is suppose to follow. FTP can
run on just ports 20 and 21 but that still doesn't make it a particulary
secure protocol or a protocol that all firewall admins will allow through
the firewall. Personally, I think the only reason Microsoft is pushing
SOAP is because their *cough* firewall *cough* (Microsoft Proxy Server)
isn't being used by everyone as a perimiter security device so they want to
conquer the firewall market by bypassing it=)
Regards,
Jeffery Gieser
-
[To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo
lists.gnac.net with
"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
- Next message: Andrew Lawrence: "Cisco router problem"
- Previous message: opie san: "RE: Stupid Checkpoint Firewall-1 Question"
- Maybe in reply to: Jeff.Hodges
kingsmountain.com: ""new" protocols vs. firewalls & firewall adminis{trators|tration} ?"
- Maybe reply: Jeffery.Gieser
minnesotamutual.com: "Re: "new" protocols vs. firewalls & firewall adminis{trators|tration} ?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]