Rabbi Haim Cassorla wrote:
>
> I am, admittedly, not extremely knowledgeable in matters firewallian, however, this thread returns me to my farming days on the collective.
>
> 1. Am I correctly understanding that a firewall is designed to stand between a "protected" region and a "suspect" region?"
Sounds good, so far.
> 2. Am I correctly understanding that said firewall should/does/(is designed to) "stand alone?"
Uuhhh, okay, it stands alone, but is still subject to the weaknesses of
its operating system... from this viewpoint, it is just another device
to be attacked.
> 3. Did I miss some important piece of data which caused you professionals to begin slinging that farm product, (fertilizer, organic, bovine, male), at each other with regard to the vulnerabilities of the "protected" region, being the dominant determinant as to whether the firewall can hold back the "fire?"
>
The slinging/discussion is about the operating system of the firewall
and its vulnerabilities, I believe, not the protected or unprotected
regions. (see #2)
> Please enlighten me as to why the firewall should care if it is protecting unix, nt, cpm, or the farmer's underware.
>
Correct, firewall doesn't care what it is protecting.
< rest of msg snipped>
--
Andy Howard 713-656-4396
achowar @
erenj .
com
"Think hard! Think Fast! Think Often! But Think!"
The contents of this note are my opinion and should
be treated only as that.
References:
|
|
