On Mar 9, 14:48, Dave Edmondson wrote:
-> it is no more (or less) secure than SCO's current TCP offering (stop giggling
-> at the back !). it is intended that the internet service provider interface
-> will provide any required security, ie. a screening cisco or some such.
Uh, have I missed something here? We run a SCO system as a gateway to
the great untamed wilderness (along with a screening router). Is
there some canonical list of problems that makes a SCO system a poor
choice for this type of machine? Why should *anyone* in the back be
giggling? :-o Have I left my company wide open to some malicious
geek's attack due to SCO and their stupidity? Info, please.
-> various tcp_wrappers are known to work with SCO, and they could be applied as
-> appropriate.
We do have the tcp_wrapper stuff installed - it keeps track of comings
and goings. No major hassles to compile/install it...
j
--
Jeffrey L. Bromberger ------- System Manager ------- Tramway Unix Systems
jeffrey @
squid .
tram .
com Anywhere!{ccnysci,limbic,icus}!tram!jeffrey
Follow-Ups:
|
|
