Great Circle Associates Firewalls
(August 1996)
 

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

Subject: Re: [NOISE] Industry analyst nonsense (was: RE: CheckPoint FireWall-1 v2.1)
From: Ron DuFresne <dufresne @ winternet . com>
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 21:42:27 -0500 (CDT)
To: C Matthew Curtin <cmcurtin @ research . megasoft . com>
Cc: Russ <Russ . Cooper @ RC . Toronto . on . ca>, "'giff @ solstice . Central . Sun . COM'" <giff @ solstice . Central . Sun . COM>, "'soth @ mindspring . com'" <soth @ mindspring . com>, "'KAVEIRLS @ PHSATL . SSW . DHHS . GOV'" <KAVEIRLS @ PHSATL . SSW . DHHS . GOV>, "'Firewalls @ GreatCircle . COM'" <Firewalls @ GreatCircle . COM>
In-reply-to: <199608231931 . PAA01947 @ goffette . research . megasoft . com>
Posted-date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 21:42:28 -0500 (CDT)

On Fri, 23 Aug 1996, C Matthew Curtin wrote:

[ Rss' comments are sniped and CMC's stand here alone ]

> 
> I think that it's a company that's run by marketing and business
> types, not engineers.
> 
> 
> Or caved to nonsense marketing pressure.
> 
> 
> Let's see, didn't IDC also predict something like 12 quadrillion units
> of Winblows 95 would be sold by year end at first, only to reduce
> their numbers?
> 
> Who cares what IDC says? IDC is not a security organization. They
> are not engineers. They are in no position to tell anyone what is a
> Good Thing or Bad Thing for a firewall.
> 
> How useful is Windows NT if Microsoft cripples its "workstation"
> version to support only 10 TCP sessions (even if only by license)? NO,
> says Microsoft, you can't use *that* product, you need the $1000 copy
> of NT, which also includes IIS and all kinds of great and wonderful
> things to run on your bastion host.
> 
> 'Hey! So what if there's security problems in 3.51? Patch? No patch!
> Upgrade to 4.0, give us an extra $500, and we'll fix that problem. No,
> there won't be any others. We swear. Look, our browser is secure, too!'
> 
> Russ, and every other NT zealot out there needs to calm down and quit
> getting a stiffy every time that some suit-wearing, 8-5-working,
> industry-analyzing, helpdesk-calling, gobbledegook-speaking,
> Microsoft-worshipping ding dong says "Hey, this NT is good stuff!"
> 
> We talk about firewalls on this list, and there are plenty of reasons
> not to use NT for firewalls. In some organizations, they'll do it
> anyway, deciding that the level of risk associated with such behavior
> is acceptable for their organization. Others will blindly go
> goosestepping along to the empty sayings of mushy-headed "consultants"
> who pretend to know what they're talking about.
> 
> A proprietary operating system can *never* be a better solution than
> an open one where security is an issue. Without the ability to look
> under the hood, you forfeit the ability to see what's going on and
> make intelligent evaluations. And then, you're at the mercy of your
> vendor.


Considering that most managament types, that most of us folks have to 
deal with are the types to be bent over backwards on the marketing and 
hype you point to here, I'd suggest that everyone here bone up on NT, 
since most will be playing in it soon...

Later,

Ron DuFresne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Cutting the space budget really restores my faith in humanity.  It
eliminates dreams, goals, and ideals and lets us get straight to the
business of hate, debauchery, and self-annihilation." -- Johnny Hart
	***testing, only testing, and damn good at it too!***

OK, so you're a Ph.D.  Just don't touch anything.



References:
Indexed By Date Previous: RE: MS Explorer 3.0 'Serious security flaw'?
From: emdy @ aditimx . vsnl . net . in (Ramaswamy M.D.)
Next: help me
From: je-jong lee <jjlee @ toody . sicc . co . kr>
Indexed By Thread Previous: Re: [NOISE] Industry analyst nonsense (was: RE: CheckPoint FireWall-1 v2.1)
From: Lord Soth <soth @ soth . users . mindspring . com>
Next: Re: CheckPoint FireWall-1 v2.1
From: Lord Soth <soth @ soth . users . mindspring . com>

Google
 
Search Internet Search www.greatcircle.com