Craig,
please tell me your opinion on this statement of mine (many people have
been burned alive for much less than that).
A firewall is something that must not be tampered with, so the fewer people
know something about it (in the organization it is there to protect) the
better. Thus, a UNIX O.S. is a good thing in an environment where many
people know NT, i.e. almost everywhere.
TIA.
-------------------------------
Franco RUGGIERI
fruggieri @
selfin .
net
----------
> Da: Craig I. Hagan <hagan @
cih .
com>
> A: Billy Verreynne <vslabs @
onwe .
co .
za>
> Cc: ygerman @
genre .
com; yati @
mod .
gov .
my; Firewalls @
GreatCircle .
COM
> Oggetto: Re: Unlimited Users Firewalls
> Data: sabato 25 ottobre 1997 3.37
>
>
> > dumb snotty nose wannabe hackers a hard on) . But even Unix TCP/IP do
not
> > always respond as it should - what about SYN stealth scans?
>
> what about them? you are ignoring the disease by addressing the
> symptoms. the fact is that you can't yet state with certainity
> that MS's tcp code is safe/secure.
>
> >
> > A company I know have been using NT with SQL-Server across a WAN for a
> > number of years now. The volumes are pretty high - hundreds of users
doing
> > OLTP transactions. The problem has never been with TCP/IP on NT, but
rather
> > with SQL-Server and the Microsoft client (Win95) DB library.
> >
>
> hundreds of users isn't high volume. more imporatantly, hundreds
> of users with what expectation of response time? I would expect
> sub-second (200ms) worst case response time for a production
> DB engine with so low a load.
>
>
> > stable and robust enough IMHO. The problem I believe is that NT's IP is
not
> > always robust enough to survive a hacker attack.
>
> > NT has received a lot of flak, especially from the Unix lovers, but it
is
> > still a good operating system and one that is used (as with Unix)
> > throughout the world by many companies for running mission critical
> > applications.
>
> I would argue that NT still has much more flak to go as fortune 1000
> companies start trying to take it out of pilot and into production for
> certain 'mission critical' applications.
>
> I argue that the ideas behind NT -- that unix, although a good operating
> system, is too complex for the average business due to the scarcity of
> knowledgeable people -- is reasonable. however, to then say that NT is
> good because it is the _only_ OS to fill that need (regardless of
> shortcomings) is a little premature. Ask me again in five years when NT
> has had a chance to incubate a bit longer. Currently, i don't consider it
> reasonable to compare a young (few year old) os against unix which has
> been around for a generation in terms of robustness, etc.
>
> -- craig
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
> Craig I. Hagan "It's a small world, but I wouldn't want to back it
up"
> hagan(at)cih.com "True hackers don't die, their ttl expires"
> "It takes a village to raise an idiot, but an idiot can raze a
village"
>
> Stop the spread of spam, use a sendmail condom!
> http://www.cih.com/~hagan/smtpd-hacks
>
Follow-Ups:
|
|
