Firewalls: Re: Stateful Packet Filters vs. Proxies

Firewalls
(June 1997)

Indexed By Thread: [Previous] [Next]

Subject:	Re: Stateful Packet Filters vs. Proxies
From:	Geoff Mulligan <geoff @ mulligan . com>
Date:	Mon, 09 Jun 1997 12:30:22 -0600
To:	"Simon J. Gerraty" <sjg @ quick . com . au>
Cc:	Ryan Russell/SYBASE <Ryan . Russell @ sybase . com>, firewalls @ greatcircle . com
In-reply-to:	Your message of "Sat, 07 Jun 1997 16:19:41 +1000." <199706070619 . QAA25566 @ zen . quick . com . au>

sjg @
 quick .
 com .
 au said:
> One thing to note - SPF and crypto do not mix. 

What!  Certainly SPF and crypto do mix.  Take a look at Sunscreen.  It is a 
stateful packet screen AND supports strong crypto through the use of SKIP.

Maybe you meant to say that NAT and crypto do not mix, but again depending on 
the configuration NAT and crypto can be used together.  Again check out 
sunscreen from Sun.  www.sun.com/security or www.sunscreen.com

And Ryan, Sunscreen SPF does support NAT in a bridging environment.

	geoff

Follow-Ups:

Re: Stateful Packet Filters vs. Proxies
From: "Simon J. Gerraty" <sjg @ quick . com . au>

References:

Re: Stateful Packet Filters vs. Proxies
From: "Simon J. Gerraty" <sjg @ quick . com . au>

Indexed By Date	Previous:	Re: Stateful Packet Filters vs. Proxies From: Geoff Mulligan <geoff @ mulligan . com>
Indexed By Date	Next:	Re: Stateful Packet Filters vs. Proxies From: Geoff Mulligan <geoff @ mulligan . com>
Indexed By Thread	Previous:	Re: Stateful Packet Filters vs. Proxies From: "Simon J. Gerraty" <sjg @ quick . com . au>
Indexed By Thread	Next:	Re: Stateful Packet Filters vs. Proxies From: "Simon J. Gerraty" <sjg @ quick . com . au>