This seems to better with PIX as you depend
> >soly on CISCO for any fix which they may not even ACTIVELY inform you.
That
> >serves as the hardware part of the whole solution.
What do you mean by this??
"may not even ACTIVELY inform you"
/mht
----------
> From: Ambrose Li <news-misc @
mingpaoxpress .
com>
> To: firewalls @
GreatCircle .
COM
> Subject: Re: PIX and other "Black boxes" vs normal firewalls.
> Date: Thursday, October 16, 1997 5:58 PM
>
> There is also the Borderware firewall, which is also a "black box"
> (once it is installed), also based on "hardened Unix" (BSD).
>
>
>
> In article <343E27D6 .
CAE18E73 @
techie .
com>, Emmanuel Yiu <e @
techie .
com>
wrote:
> >
> >Their solution is kind of neat to me. They have a box which run a
"harden" Linux
> >kernel, this sounds to me a good edge, it is base in UNIX, a lot of
people know
> >it and probably when there is security hole, it will be identified quick
and
> >potentially closed quick (owing to the accessibility of source code by
WORLD of
> >experts). You can constantly bugging your vendor of any security hole
that you
> >know from any souce, like this list. This seems to better with PIX as
you depend
> >soly on CISCO for any fix which they may not even ACTIVELY inform you.
That
> >serves as the hardware part of the whole solution.
>
> --
> Ambrose C. Li <acli @
mingpaoxpress .
com> Programmer-analyst (sysadmin)
> Toronto EDP, Ming Pao Daily News +1(416)321-0088 1355 Huntingwood Dr
> Scarborough ON Canada M1S 3J1 [<- work ]
> [ home ->] <acli @
acli .
interlog .
com>
Follow-Ups:
|
|
