Great Circle Associates Firewalls
(September 1994)
 

Indexed By Date: [Previous] [Next] Indexed By Thread: [Previous] [Next]

Subject: Why assign names to *everyone* ?
From: padgett @ tccslr . dnet . mmc . com (A. Padgett Peterson, P.E. Information Security)
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 94 15:54:48 -0400
To: "firewalls @ greatcircle . com"@UVS1.dnet.mmc.com

Craig rites:
>However, they still need names in the DNS so that they can X/Windows
>and FTP _out_.

Do not understand, why do you need to assign *names* ? We have several thousand
TCP/IP platforms here and while a large number have been given names, this
is by no means all and names must be requested. All do have IP addresses
(or BOOTP ranges) and many are able to perform all necessary functions without
a name (in this case the IP address appears in the PATH or Received: from
header line). I have even seen FTP and SMTP servers set up this way.

Certainly a firewall or filter has no need of a name (and security does not
benefit from using someting like xxx_7000 for routers - particularly if the
password is five letters ending in "o").
						Warmly,
							Padgett

Indexed By Date Previous: is port 20 a requirement?
From: Chip Rosenthal <chip @ chinacat . unicom . com>
Next: Router Filter Testing
From: Michael Laufer <mlaufer @ BBN . COM>
Indexed By Thread Previous: is port 20 a requirement?
From: Chip Rosenthal <chip @ chinacat . unicom . com>
Next: Why assign names to *everyone* ?
From: fin @ unet . umn . edu

Google
 
Search Internet Search www.greatcircle.com