Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 19:19:54 -0500 From: Allen Landsidel <all@biosys.net> To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Best security topology for FreeBSD Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20011127191737.00ae1bd0@rfnj.org> In-Reply-To: <200111271642.fARGgfU32312@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20011127071415.00aa4a18@rfnj.org> <5.1.0.14.0.20011127071415.00aa4a18@rfnj.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 11:42 AM 11/27/2001 -0500, you wrote: >I think the more traditional version (of the ``two-firewall'' >implementation) is not much different from this: ... I hadn't really thought of the packet-filtering router as a firewall, but I suppose it does fit the definition. I always took it as a given that everone had some level of ACLs on their routers, and thus didn't include it as a "firewall" in the diagram. I would guess the original poster of the "two firewalls is better; a single one is a poor design" message was probably thinking the same thing. If not, well, I guess we're all in agreement then, except for "Mr quad firewalls are cool" to whom I just responded. ;) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5.1.0.14.0.20011127191737.00ae1bd0>