Great Circle Associates Firewalls
(September 1996)
 

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

Subject: Re: FW-1 - less secure ?
From: Rabid Wombat <wombat @ mcfeely . bsfs . org>
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 13:55:01 -0400 (EDT)
To: "Gerard D. Cochrane Jr." <gdcochra @ utep . edu>
Cc: Darren Reed <avalon @ coombs . anu . edu . au>, DOA <klynn @ cyberspace . com>, Firewalls @ GreatCircle . COM
In-reply-to: <Pine . HPP . 3 . 95 . 960929030009 . 7234D-100000 @ mail . utep . edu>

Gerald, you really need to log out before wandering off to the coke 
machine. Unattended terminals are a major security breach ...

- r.w.

On Sun, 29 Sep 1996, Gerard D. Cochrane Jr. wrote:

> On Sun, 29 Sep 1996, Darren Reed wrote:
> 
> > > In my experience I'd favor gauntlet as it is a true application level
> > > proxy gateway. Firewall-1 which is supposed to perform as the fastest
> > > firewall around is unfortunately a hybrid packet filtering firewall
> > > therefore it is somewhat less secure (depending on how you setup your
> > > site of course).
> > 
> > Interestingly, I heard some gossip recently that Checkpoint (& Sun)
> > weren't sure if Firewall-1 (or any firewall with FW-1 installed) could
> > "Fail safe".
> > 
> > Darren
> > 
> 	Fuck you dildo you wanna see a REALLY secure system.. try to hack
> MINE.. IM UNHACKABLE.. you stupid panzys cant do shit stupid bastards..
> Lick my balls.. you little BOYS.. lick em'... go away idiots.. your all to
> stupid for me to be asociating myself with.
> 
> 


References:
Indexed By Date Previous: Re: FW-1 - less secure ?
From: rabbi @ www . valuu . net (Rabbi Haim Cassorla)
Next: New Release - Software OTP Encryption.
From: nobody @ REPLAY . COM (Anonymous)
Indexed By Thread Previous: Re: FW-1 - less secure ?
From: Ron DuFresne <dufresne @ winternet . com>
Next: Re: FW-1 - less secure ?
From: "Gerard D. Cochrane Jr." <gdcochra @ utep . edu>

Google
 
Search Internet Search www.greatcircle.com