Re: FW-1 technical strength

Darren Reed (darrenrreed.wattle.id.au)
Sun, 27 Dec 1998 00:08:34 +1100 (EST)

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
• Next message: David Lang: "Re: SecureID vendors?"
• Previous message: Scot Anderson: "RE: Ports 256,257,258 open on FW-1"
• In reply to: jgalvincs.loyola.edu: "RE: Ports 256,257,258 open on FW-1"
• Next in thread: jgalvincs.loyola.edu: "Re: FW-1 technical strength"
• Reply: jgalvincs.loyola.edu: "Re: FW-1 technical strength"
• Reply: Kevin Steves: "Re: FW-1 technical strength"

In some email I received from Ryan Russell, sie wrote:
>
> Ok, so what's wrong with it?

In some ways you could compare the default FW-1 settings with those for
SunOS4 and /etc/hosts.equiv. It's the first thing that "anyone in the
know" changes, but there's more units sold than "people in the know".
Everyone knows they're insecure but the vendor still ships it that way
to everyone's disbelief.

Darren

• Next message: David Lang: "Re: SecureID vendors?"
• Previous message: Scot Anderson: "RE: Ports 256,257,258 open on FW-1"
• In reply to: jgalvincs.loyola.edu: "RE: Ports 256,257,258 open on FW-1"
• Next in thread: jgalvincs.loyola.edu: "Re: FW-1 technical strength"
• Reply: jgalvincs.loyola.edu: "Re: FW-1 technical strength"
• Reply: Kevin Steves: "Re: FW-1 technical strength"

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Jul 17 1999 - 07:12:11 CDT