nuqneH, => Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1998 17:29:23 -0600 => To: C Matthew Curtin <cmcurtinat_private>, "Marcus J. Ranum" <mjrat_private> => From: Rick Smith <rsmithat_private> => Subject: Re: [fwd] Firewall Products: Many Not Ready For Prime Time, => Study Says [dd] => Reminds me of the first time I paid attention to a magazine's firewall => comparison article. They compared performance (the magazine's lab had a way => of measuring it). They compared which services could be passed through (the => magazine's lab had a way of testing it). They compared user interfaces (the => magazine's lab had a way of assessing it). But it seemed like they forgot => to assess something or other important about firewalls. Hmmm. Let me see if => I can remember what it was. Security features, maybe? Ability to block => attacks? Resistance to attack? Not the droids they were looking for, I => guess. Heh. Things are even worse. When i see another magazine article about firewalls i start crying out dirty words loud and kicking pets. Why? Nearly every time i see some [censored] like this: "..security is not the main issue; we tested all the products with ISS scanner and found no vulnerabilities - so we can say they are all secure enough. So the main feature is easy (read: GUI) administration - and NT firewalls are better than Unix ones because installing and using Unix is not easy - we even failed to install <list here> systems in our lab". Bulls**t. And _those_ people do think they are able to talk, say more, recommend something security-related!? I've seen that not once and not twice. --- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Must be a visit from the dead.. _| o |_ | | _|| | / _||_| |_ |_ |_ CU in Hell .......... Arkan#iD |_ o _||_| _||_| / _| | o |_||_||_|
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Apr 13 2001 - 12:54:01 PDT