On Fri, 2003-02-14 at 08:21, Anthony E. Greene wrote:
> Dave Ihnat wrote:
> > Relying on the infallibility of your software and administration as your
> > only defense is [...] naive and dangerous.
Amen.
Why someone would choose to deprecate a tool which does no harm and
provides an ADDITIONAL la
ather then
using ready to use firewall (checkpoint, trustix, cyberguard, watchguard
etc)
Dave Ihnat wrote:
> Relying on the infallibility of your software and administration as your
> only defense is, to be blunt--and I have been in these posts, far more
> than I usually am, because I'm
Dave Ihnat wrote:
Relying on the infallibility of your software and administration as your
only defense is, to be blunt--and I have been in these posts, far more
than I usually am, because I'm quite worried that someone will believe
your approach--naieve and dangerous.
I agree. Anyone who wishes
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 02:01:49PM -0500, Kent Borg wrote:
> > With all due respect, not only is that a very misguided attitude, it's a
> > dangerous one to promulgate.
>
> First, a point of order: if you are sincere about the "with all due
> respect"-part, then don't suggest that I am a cracker.
On Thu, 13 Feb 2003, Kent Borg wrote:
> These days Red Hat ships quite secure. Keep it up to date, use good
Oh, come on...is this a troll? I usually have to spend a whole day
installing a Red Hat box: an hour or two for the install, and the rest of
the day locking down the default configuration.
On Thu, 13 Feb 2003, Budi Febrianto wrote:
> What are the different if I using RHL 8 as firewall, rather than using
> pre-built firewall. They say that the pre-built firewall come with
> hardened operating system, I think Linux already did.
A packet filter is a packet filter. Some of the commerci
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 11:58:58AM -0600, Dave Ihnat wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 10:02:54AM -0500, Kent Borg wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 07:56:23AM -0600, Dave Ihnat wrote:
> > > We all urgently push you to implement a firewall...any firewall...
> >
> > No we don't (with or without smi
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 10:02:54AM -0500, Kent Borg wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 07:56:23AM -0600, Dave Ihnat wrote:
> > We all urgently push you to implement a firewall...any firewall...
>
> No we don't (with or without smilies), I do not advise a firewall
> unless you are trying to protect s
On Wed, 2003-02-12 at 22:59, Budi Febrianto wrote:
> I'm playing around with RHL 8 to set up firewall with iptables.
> With Pentium II 300, 64 MB, 4 GB SCSI HD, 2 NIC's 100 Mbps. I think it
> enough.
Enough if you use text mode. I run a good firewall on a Pentium/166 with
64 MB, a 1GB EIDE disk, a
using ready to
use firewall (checkpoint, trustix, cyberguard, watchguard etc)
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 07:56:23AM -0600, Dave Ihnat wrote:
> We all urgently push you to implement a firewall...any firewall...
No we don't (with or without smilies), I do not advise a firewall
unless you are t
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 07:56:23AM -0600, Dave Ihnat wrote:
> We all urgently push you to implement a firewall...any firewall...
No we don't (with or without smilies), I do not advise a firewall
unless you are trying to protect some MS Windows garbage and that is a
losing battle you are better off
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 07:56:23AM -0600, Dave Ihnat wrote:
>
> > I'm playing around with RHL 8 to set up firewall with iptables.
> > With Pentium II 300, 64 MB, 4 GB SCSI HD, 2 NIC's 100 Mbps. I think it
> > enough.
>
> Nope--more memory required. At least 128.
Actually more memory is only req
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 11:59:11AM +0700, Budi Febrianto wrote:
> Management urgently push me to implement firewall in our system.
> Yes... we do not have firewall.
We all urgently push you to implement a firewall...any firewall...
(SmileyifIdidsmileyswhichIdon't).
> I'm playing around with RHL 8
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 11:59:11AM +0700, Budi Febrianto wrote:
> I'm playing around with RHL 8 to set up firewall with iptables.
> With Pentium II 300, 64 MB, 4 GB SCSI HD, 2 NIC's 100 Mbps. I think it
> enough.
Note that 64MB is not considered enough - Red Hat Linux 8 requires a
minimum of 128MB
A good choice is to use firewall builder and leaf.
http://leaf.sourceforge.net/
http://www.fwbuilder.org/
it may help you
raymundo
Budi Febrianto wrote:
Hi,
Management urgently push me to implement firewall in our system.
Yes... we do not have firewall.
I'm playing around with RHL 8 to set up
Hi,
Management urgently push me to implement firewall in our system.
Yes... we do not have firewall.
I'm playing around with RHL 8 to set up firewall with iptables.
With Pentium II 300, 64 MB, 4 GB SCSI HD, 2 NIC's 100 Mbps. I think it
enough.
I configure firewall based on Rusty's IPTABLES How to
On Sat, Mar 10, 2001 at 05:20:15PM -0400, Michael Burger wrote:
: You're much better off asking someone at Checkpoint, the vendor from
: which you purchased Checkpoint, or a Checkpoint mailing list.
I'm with Mike on that, but since I've been running the product for more
than a
You're much better off asking someone at Checkpoint, the vendor from
which you purchased Checkpoint, or a Checkpoint mailing list.
On Sat, 10 Mar 2001 19:13:09 +0300, Biniam Sahlezghi wrote:
>Hi
>My checkpoint is not allow me to enter to the policy editor and to others. It say &qu
Hi
My checkpoint is not allow me to enter to the
policy editor and to others. It say "No response from the server Cannot connect
to the server" I thought it was a password problem but now it is not.When I
check the event viewer for error logs it says "Login failed you pri
On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 01:45:48PM -0500, David Brett wrote:
: checkpoint has beta software for linux. I have not been able to get my
: hands on it yet.
Check Point's only Linux offerings are MetaIP and FireWall-1/VPN-1. Both
are released, and shipping products. As far as I know, there
checkpoint has beta software for linux. I have not been able to get my
hands on it yet.
david
On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Johnathan Smith wrote:
> I also been trying to find a way to make my redhat
> computer access my firm. My firm uses checkpoint VPN
> client??
>
> Can this be d
You can always look into FreeS/WAN (http://www.freeswan.org).
I know that Checkpoint VPN supports IPsec and since FreeS/WAN is an
IPsec compliant package you should look into it.
Heman
Johnathan Smith wrote:
> I also been trying to find a way to make my redhat
> computer access my fi
I also been trying to find a way to make my redhat
computer access my firm. My firm uses checkpoint VPN
client??
Can this be done with redhat?
=
If your into Body For Life, check out
http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/bodyforlifestatenislandny
23 matches
Mail list logo
