From owner-freebsd-security Sat Oct 7 10:38:41 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from natto.numachi.com (natto.numachi.com [198.175.254.216]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E24A337B66D for ; Sat, 7 Oct 2000 10:38:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 54976 invoked by uid 1001); 7 Oct 2000 17:38:04 -0000 Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 13:38:04 -0400 From: Brian Reichert To: Roman Shterenzon Cc: Chris Faulhaber , Craig Cowen , "freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG" Subject: Re: Check Point FW-1 Message-ID: <20001007133804.C54883@numachi.com> References: <20001007074145.A59213@earth.causticlabs.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from roman@xpert.com on Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 05:49:09PM +0200 Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 05:49:09PM +0200, Roman Shterenzon wrote: > Hi, > Speaking for myself (Xpert are official ChekPoint dealer) I can say that > although FW-1 might had some problems, it's quite good. > It's quite secure as well (usually installed on Solaris/(sparc|i386) ) I've never installed it. I 'inherited' a CheckPoint box running under Solaris, and, from an internel net had to break in to the box to grant myself admin privs. I got in because UNIX services under SunOS 5.6 were misconfigured. That's not CheckPoint's fault. But I don't think it's fair to claim that the presence of CheckPoint makes the box secure... > --Roman Shterenzon, UNIX System Administrator and Consultant > [ Xpert UNIX Systems Ltd., Herzlia, Israel. Tel: +972-9-9522361 ] -- Brian 'you Bastard' Reichert 37 Crystal Ave. #303 Daytime number: (603) 434-6842 Derry NH 03038-1713 USA Intel architecture: the left-hand path To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message