From owner-freebsd-security Thu Oct 29 11:42:20 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id LAA11161 for freebsd-security-outgoing; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 11:42:20 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from carp.gbr.epa.gov (carp.gbr.epa.gov [204.46.159.110]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA11134 for ; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 11:42:14 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mjenkins@carp.gbr.epa.gov) Received: (from mjenkins@localhost) by carp.gbr.epa.gov (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA13229; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 13:42:05 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from mjenkins) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 13:42:05 -0600 (CST) From: Mike Jenkins Message-Id: <199810291942.NAA13229@carp.gbr.epa.gov> To: junkmale@xtra.co.nz Subject: Re: Connections succeed even though denied by IPFW Cc: freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <199810291807.HAA15796@witch.xtra.co.nz> Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > From: "Dan Langille" > Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 07:07:59 +1300 > > Is it correct to assume that firewall proxies are not suspectible the same > problem? I don't think so. That's why I'm curious as to why Chapman > mentions packet filtering, not proxies. Chapman's paper was about using packet filters for network security and was not about firewalls. It may have been sort of pre-firewall days (1992). See the Firewall FAQ (http://www.interhack.net/pubs/fwfaq/) for more info on firewalls. Mike To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message