|
Subject: |
Dual firewall solution (??) |
|
From: |
manuel .
ricca @
pararede .
pt |
|
Date: |
20 Jun 97 16:46:40 +0000 |
|
To: |
firewalls @
greatcircle .
com (Non Receipt Notification Requested) |
|
Alternate-recipient: |
Prohibited |
|
Autoforwarded: |
FALSE |
|
Conversion: |
Allowed |
|
Conversion-with-loss: |
Allowed |
|
Delivery-date: |
20 Jun 97 16:46:42 +0000 |
|
Importance: |
normal |
|
Message-type: |
Multiple Part |
|
Original-encoded-information-types: |
IA5-Text |
|
X400-content-type: |
P2-1988 |
|
X400-mts-identifier: |
[/PRMD=pararede/ADMD=ip/C=pt;ISOCOR-337be5c4-Tubarao] |
|
X400-originator: |
manuel .
ricca @
pararede .
pt |
|
X400-received: |
by /PRMD=pararede/ADMD=ip/C=pt; Relayed; 20 Jun 97 16:46:40 +0000 |
|
X400-recipients: |
firewalls @
greatcircle .
com |
Hi,
I've heard of a firewall solution where they have 2 cascaded Checkpoint Firewall-1's.
I know the client needed a solution that allowed:
- Secure remote access for X.400 from the outside;
- Direct lines allowing outbound FTP and TELNET to business partners;
- DNS, NNTP, SMTP for the outside world (Internet) - these of course is running in the Firewall.
Can anybody think of a plausible explanation for the existence of 2 firewalls instead of one?
Someone told me that it would be possible to have the first firewall detecting an intrusion and then alerting the other one
to block traffic. This doesn't make any sense to me.
Somebody else talked about having a secure server network isolated, but Firewall-1 can have 3 interfaces anyway, right?
If anybody comes up with a solution for this (though it seems to me the seller just wanted to sell 2 firewalls instead of 1...),
I'll send a nude picture of Lady Di.
Thanks,
manuel ricca
|
|
