From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jun 11 02:35:44 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D306616A4D1 for ; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 02:35:44 +0000 (GMT) Received: from quark.cs.earlham.edu (cs.earlham.edu [159.28.230.3]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 773C643D49 for ; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 02:35:44 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from skylar@cs.earlham.edu) Received: from quark.cs.earlham.edu (localhost.cs.earlham.edu [127.0.0.1]) by quark.cs.earlham.edu (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i5B2ZMB4094135 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-DSS-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 10 Jun 2004 21:35:22 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from skylar@cs.earlham.edu) Received: (from skylar@localhost) by quark.cs.earlham.edu (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i5B2ZM97094134; Thu, 10 Jun 2004 21:35:22 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from skylar@cs.earlham.edu) X-Authentication-Warning: quark.cs.earlham.edu: skylar set sender to skylar@quark.cs.earlham.edu using -f Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 21:35:22 -0500 From: Skylar Thompson To: "B.Bonev" Message-ID: <20040611023522.GA94060@quark.cs.earlham.edu> References: <002201c44e15$e4c34a20$0200a8c0@server> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="AhhlLboLdkugWU4S" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <002201c44e15$e4c34a20$0200a8c0@server> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-Sender: "Skylar Thompson" X-Accept-Primary-Language: en X-Accept-Secondary-Language: es SMTP-Mailing-Host: quark.cs.earlham.edu X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 4.9-RELEASE X-Uptime: 9:34PM up 18 days, 7:40, 26 users, load averages: 0.23, 0.16, 0.10 X-Editor: VIM - Vi IMproved 6.2 (2003 Jun 1, compiled May 19 2004 13:14:50) X-Earlham-CS-Dept-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-Earlham-CS-Dept-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: skylar@cs.earlham.edu cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Scheme for securing LAN X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: Skylar Thompson List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 02:35:45 -0000 --AhhlLboLdkugWU4S Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 02:32:31PM +0300, B.Bonev wrote: > Hi FreeBSDers, I have a simple question. >=20 > What scheme for securing LAN is better? >=20 > =20 >=20 > Internet >=20 > | >=20 > Apache _____ FreeBSD ____LAN >=20 > Web Server Firewall >=20 > =20 >=20 > or >=20 > Internet >=20 > | >=20 > FreeBSD >=20 > Firewall >=20 > | >=20 > Apache >=20 > Web Server >=20 > | >=20 > FreeBSD >=20 > Firewall >=20 > | >=20 > LAN >=20 > =20 >=20 > What are advantages and disadvantages of two? >=20 > I know that is much more important how tuned Firewalls, Web Server and wo= rkstations behind are. >=20 > Is there any difficulty for workstations that should works in Internet, b= ecause of two Firewalls? Not really. You'll have the advantage of a secured DMZ but, the real question is, do you really need the added complexity? You need to say more about *why* you want to do this? How many users are you supporting? What's coming off the web server? etc. --=20 -- Skylar Thompson (skylar@cs.earlham.edu) -- http://www.cs.earlham.edu/~skylar/ --AhhlLboLdkugWU4S Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFAyRpqsc4yyULgN4YRAjqlAJ9DVnHYutsnuhQfoxSXsd0xCy3L8wCfVRxe /f+0LPCeyyZnnoIUQbYDcLk= =1m6e -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --AhhlLboLdkugWU4S--