At 08:34 AM 7/1/96, gary flynn wrote:
>> I think some important important questions need to asked:
>>
>> 1. Who appointed the NCSA as the proper body to approve firewalls?
>>
>
>I think your questions are valid but I think the underlying
>principle is "lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way" :-)
I think you're all missing the point. I have no problem with the concept
of the NCSA or any other responsible body acting as a protector of the
public interest in insuring that all firewall products deliver the security
promised or, at a minimum, necessary to adequately protect our networks.
The mission statement is admirable. The execution is faulty.
According to Mr. Tippett, President of NCSA, "the NCSA tries to act in this
regard like a government agency for the commercial sector." (Communications
Week. June 17). What goverment agency requires membership for a fee prior
to testing a vendors product? Moreover, isn't the NCSA's list just an
advertisement unless all firewall vendors are invited to have their product
tested irrespective of membership in the NCSA? Does the list state that it
is an ad for the NCSA and its members?
Mr Tippett adds " "you shouldn't buy a firewall that hasn't been tested
and certified, just like youshuldn't buy a lamp that does not have a UL
stamp on it." (Communications Week, June 17). I don't believe the UL is a
for-profit organization nor is any vendor's product not acceptable for
testing.
The issue here is disclosure and proper execution of a responsible mission.
------------
Corey M. Horowitz
CMH Capital Management Corp.
909 Third Avenue 9th Floor
New York, N.Y. 10022
CMH @
Interramp .
com
212-293-3082 (voice)
212-293-3090 (fax)
Follow-Ups:
|
|
