This is a good idea, and one that I will stick into our product requirements
list. A benefit to providing souce code is that customers can create
proxies based on, or by looking at, other proxies. Customers of ours have
done this. But an API is a good idea.
Fred
At 04:49 AM 2/5/96 -0500, Andrew K. Bressen wrote:
>In article <256176126 .
339531179 @
va .
arca .
com>,
>Jeff Williams <williams @
va .
arca .
com> wrote:
>>We're wondering whether or not it is common practice to provide an API so
>>that we can create our own proxy applications if we want to. At least one
>>vendor has said "No way".
>
>well, TIS Gauntlet (and FWTK) has a "plug-board" proxy that can be used
>to proxy a given TCP port (or maybe even port pair).
>
>you could also look into SOCKS.
>
>I'm not sure what the status of skronk and gssapi are, or if they
>could be applied to this problem.
>
>>Is it reasonable to expect such an API with a firewall product? What's the
>>best way to find out which ones do or do not?
>
>reasonable, sure. realistic, I dunno.
>many firewall vendors wish to give out as little info as possible
>about the innards of their systems, and users adding things to
>those systems is generally not supported.
>
>
|
|
