Re: FW: Firewall Project

2000-08-21 Thread Jules Bean
On Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 11:57:53AM -0700, Brent Fulgham wrote: > > > Can anyone comment on why Linux would be unsuitable for firewall use > > > in this configuration? > > > > Can you explain what an `active' packet is? > > > > That's my question as well. I can't find any reference to an "ac

Offtopic: Re: FW: Firewall Project

2000-08-21 Thread Seth Cohn
Offtopic, very much so. But the answer is, it's totally suitable... and commericial Linux based solutions exist, if they don't want to roll their own (for liability reasons, they might not). Try www.watchguard.com for one such answer. please follow up via email... this list is not the right for

RE: FW: Firewall Project

2000-08-21 Thread Brent Fulgham
> > Can anyone comment on why Linux would be unsuitable for firewall use > > in this configuration? > > Can you explain what an `active' packet is? > That's my question as well. I can't find any reference to an "active" packet definition. Could he mean some kind of "keep-alive" configurati

Re: FW: Firewall Project

2000-08-21 Thread Kurt D. Starsinic
On Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 11:51:00AM -0700, Brent Fulgham wrote: > The "technical" leadership at my wife's work are back-pedalling from > using a Linux firewall between an AS/400 system and remotely-connected > PC's based on the following argument: > > > To all Network Administrators: > > > > Probl

FW: Firewall Project

2000-08-21 Thread Brent Fulgham
The "technical" leadership at my wife's work are back-pedalling from using a Linux firewall between an AS/400 system and remotely-connected PC's based on the following argument: > To all Network Administrators: > > Problem: AS/400 can only communicate with active packets to and from the > client.