Re: Additional TPC/IP stack

Jyri Kaljundi (jkstallion.ee)
Sat, 8 Nov 1997 18:51:28 +0200 (EET)

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
• Next message: Mike Shaver: "Re: IP transparent proxies (source)."
• Previous message: Mike Shaver: "Re: R: New ftp behavior"
• In reply to: Franco RUGGIERI: "R: New ftp behavior"
• Next in thread: Darren Reed: "Re: Additional TPC/IP stack"
• Reply: Darren Reed: "Re: Additional TPC/IP stack"

On Wed, 5 Nov 1997, Franco RUGGIERI wrote:

> Do you feel that such additional checking in an ad hoc IP stack is
> valuable?

Well Windows NT TCP/IP stack has probably had some security problems (like
wrong reaction to OOB and other packets), and now that Milkyway has
rewritten the whole NT TCP/IP stack for their firewall, at least they have
said that there are other problems with it. So if you can, having a stack
that has been written considering security is certainly better than what
you get with any operating system. This is one thing you have to consider
when choosing a fw product, but certainly having a robust and secure TCP
stack only won't help so much when the OS itself is really buggy.

Jyri Kaljundi
jkstallion.ee
AS Stallion Ltd
http://www.stallion.ee/

• Next message: Mike Shaver: "Re: IP transparent proxies (source)."
• Previous message: Mike Shaver: "Re: R: New ftp behavior"
• In reply to: Franco RUGGIERI: "R: New ftp behavior"
• Next in thread: Darren Reed: "Re: Additional TPC/IP stack"
• Reply: Darren Reed: "Re: Additional TPC/IP stack"

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Jul 17 1999 - 07:09:48 CDT