Great Circle Associates Firewalls
(June 1997)
 

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

Subject: Re: Stateful Packet Filters vs. Proxies
From: Ryan Russell/SYBASE <Ryan . Russell @ sybase . com>
Date: 7 Jun 97 18:26:27 EDT
To: "Simon J. Gerraty" <sjg @ quick . com . au>
Cc: Ryan Russell/SYBASE <Ryan . Russell @ sybase . com>, "Simon J. Gerraty" <sjg @ quick . com . au>, firewalls <firewalls @ greatcircle . com>

Sure, an FTP proxy that can decrypt your
encrypted FTP session will work, same as
a SPF with the same features will.

If a SPF or a proxy can act as one endpoint
of an ancrypted connection, it can watch
for the port command and deal with it.

You seem to be under the impression that SPFs
aren't capable of understaning the protocol
being routed... if that were the case, the non-encrypted
FTP session wouldn't work over the PIX box with NAT
emabled, would it?  There is no reason that the SPF
software can't be designed to act as an encryption 
endpoint, but apparantly the PIX hasn't for FTP.

   Ryan

---------- Previous Message ----------
To: Ryan.Russell
cc: sjg, firewalls
From: sjg @ quick.com.au ("Simon J. Gerraty") @ smtp
Date: 06/08/97 10:17:28 AM
Subject: Re: Stateful Packet Filters vs. Proxies

> A proxy would have the same problem.

On the contrary, an ftp proxy would have been able to handle it -
because it does not simply shuffle packets - it plays the protocol.

I know, because my ftp proxy handles the same situation with no
problems. 

--sjg





Follow-Ups:
Indexed By Date Previous: Another ISP Security Connection Question
From: Gabriel Dura <dura @ geocities . com>
Next: Re: Stateful Packet Filters vs. Proxies
From: "Simon J. Gerraty" <sjg @ quick . com . au>
Indexed By Thread Previous: Re: Stateful Packet Filters vs. Proxies
From: "Simon J. Gerraty" <sjg @ quick . com . au>
Next: Re: Stateful Packet Filters vs. Proxies
From: "Craig I. Hagan" <hagan @ cih . com>

Google
 
Search Internet Search www.greatcircle.com