Great Circle Associates Firewalls
(July 1996)
 

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

Subject: Re: Catapult
From: lists @ lina . inka . de (Bernd Eckenfels)
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 23:59:11 +0200 (MET DST)
To: Firewalls @ GreatCircle . COM
In-reply-to: <c=US%a=_%p=Toronto%l=MAIL-960726204438Z-6 @ mail . rc . toronto . on . ca> from "Russ" at Jul 26, 96 04:44:38 pm

Hi,

> Ken Hardy finally said...
> >"That would justify a proprietary implementation, perhaps, but would not be
> >incompatible with parallel support for Standard Socks TCP clients."
> 
> Given that WinSock is specifically designed to implement BSD Sockets in
> a Microsoft Windows environment, anything that Microsoft does to
> implement the of remoting WinSock applications will be proprietary to
> the Microsoft Windows environment due to the nature of the API in
> question.

Hmm... on the Client side this is true. But we are talking about firewalls.
One can't use Microsofts Catapult as a firewall for Unix Systems running
Socks Clients, since the Firewall doesnt understand the Protokoll. With
Socks you can use a Unix-FW to proxy MS Clients and you can use Unix-Clients
also.

Anyway.. what are the IP Firewalling capabilities of the Catapult System?

Greetings
Bernd
-- 
  (OO)      -- Bernd_Eckenfels @
 Wittumstrasse13 .
 76646Bruchsal .
 de --
 ( .. )  ecki @
 lina .
 {inka .
 de,ka.sub.org}  http://home.pages.de/~eckes/
  o--o     *plush*  2048/A2C51749  eckes @
 irc  +4972573817  *plush*
(O____O)       If privacy is outlawed only Outlaws have privacy


Follow-Ups:
References:
  • RE: Catapult
    From: Russ <Russ . Cooper @ RC . Toronto . on . ca>
Indexed By Date Previous: RE: Catapult
From: Ken Hardy <ken @ bridge . com>
Next: Tunnel from one proxy server to another
From: Joe Smith <joey @ getonthe . net>
Indexed By Thread Previous: RE: Catapult
From: Russ <Russ . Cooper @ RC . Toronto . on . ca>
Next: Re: Catapult
From: John Betts <johnb @ aztec . co . za>

Google
 
Search Internet Search www.greatcircle.com