RE: COmpare Firewalls

Joe Ippolito (joejoesnet.com)
Wed, 8 Sep 1999 06:01:29 -0700

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
• Next message: Siglite: "Re: SMTP Firewall"
• Previous message: Rick Smith: "Re: Credit card transaction security"
• Next in thread: Dameon D. Welch: "Re: COmpare Firewalls"
• Next in thread: Joe Ippolito: "RE: COmpare Firewalls"
• Reply: Dameon D. Welch: "Re: COmpare Firewalls"

So what I here you saying is that MS Proxy uses an application-level packet
filter that is less secure than a kernel-level packet filter? Can you site
an example and say why? Wouldn't either one have to get in front of the OS
to filter incoming packets?

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-firewall-wizardslists.nfr.net
[mailto:owner-firewall-wizardslists.nfr.net]On Behalf Of Dameon D.
Welch
Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 1999 11:06 AM
To: joejoesnet.com
Cc: firewall-wizardsnfr.net
Subject: Re: COmpare Firewalls

On Tue, Sep 07, 1999 at 09:06:20AM -0700, Joe Ippolito wrote:

> So you know of something that will protect an OS and is not an
application?
> Hmmmm?

Proper firewalls are a combination of user-level applications & kernel-level
packet filtering (stateful or otherwise). Any of the commercial firewalls
that run on NT should fit this bill.

-- PhoneBoy

• Next message: Siglite: "Re: SMTP Firewall"
• Previous message: Rick Smith: "Re: Credit card transaction security"
• Next in thread: Dameon D. Welch: "Re: COmpare Firewalls"
• Next in thread: Joe Ippolito: "RE: COmpare Firewalls"
• Reply: Dameon D. Welch: "Re: COmpare Firewalls"

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Sep 09 1999 - 16:10:52 CDT