Great Circle Associates Firewalls
(October 1997)
 

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

Subject: Re: Single point of failure.
From: "Greg Barnes" <greg @ ou812 . com>
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 15:56:58 +0000
To: bjm @ fl . dk, Firewalls @ GreatCircle . COM
Comments: Authenticated sender is <greg @ mail . webnology . com>

On  9 Oct 97, bjm @
 fl .
 dk wrote about Single point of failure.: 

[snip]
>      A couple of firewall products offer the ability to support multiple 
>      network interface cards. These products are often used in solutions 
>      where different kind of user groups, servers/services etc. are 
>      separated on different LAN-segments connected to the firewall. If a 
>      company uses this functionality on a firewall, they introduce a single 
>      point of failure which I think is often neglected or forgotten.

There are more single points of failure in any given network on any 
given day than I think most care to admit.  While this does not 
negate your argument, These option are best weighed in a 'risk-analysis'. 
You check your probable risks, improbable risks and 
possible risks associated with a given network/network device.  You 
then take very specific and measurable steps to protect the device or 
the network as a whole.  Backup devices are ALWAYS a good thing, but 
rarely financially feasible.  If the probable winds up being a 
directed attack or a high failure rate for the firewall then a backup 
is in order.  If not...?  While I abhor the fact that finances 
are sometimes an issue when planning/protecting your network I do 
respect a calculated risk.  

The short version of my philosophy...which is subject to change at 
any moment without prior notice from the managment.  ;-)

1.  Sometimes you're better off setting up a link state routing protocol on 
your backbone, adding a redundant link and adding access lists to each of 
your routers (solving the lack of dynamic recovery on a failed state 
interface).

2. The support for additional security features through the use of 
`packet header extensions' provided by IPv6 (thus allowing every host 
behind the gateway router to authenticate / deny incoming packets) 
eliminates the 'all or nothing' philosophy of the firewall.  To some 
this is a more appetizing course of action.  Specially since IPv6 is 
free.

Firewalls (no offense) be damned if I can have my cake and eat it too.


Egads....I wrote a book even. =-o

 

Regards,

Greg Barnes
Webnology LLC

 ________________________________________________
|\===============W=E=B=N=O=L=O=G=Y===============\
       greg @
 ou812 .
 com    Phone  (830)768-2292
       noc @
 ou812 .
 com     FAX    (830)774-1518
|/===============W=E=B=N=O=L=O=G=Y===============/

'If you're a horse and someone gets on you and falls off, then 
gets right back on you...I think you should buck him off right 
away'
                    -- Deep Thoughts, By Jack Handey

*ANTISPAM-NOTE* To respond to this message, replace 
'ou812.' with 'webnology.' in the return address.


Indexed By Date Previous: (no subject)
From: leen seung jin <howard7 @ halla2 . dacom . co . kr>
Next: Radius for Firewall-1 3.0
From: "Denis Koo N.C." <denis . koo @ hkcg . com>
Indexed By Thread Previous: Re: Single point of failure.
From: Andy Howard <achowar @ erenj . com>
Next: PIX : big FTP downloads stop a 99% (side-tracked a little)
From: Anthony Burow <aburow @ gil . com . au>

Google
 
Search Internet Search www.greatcircle.com