[3203] in WWW Security List Archive
RE: [NTSEC] Re: General Question
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Dev Kumar Roy)
Fri Oct 11 04:37:01 1996
From: Dev Kumar Roy <devroy@pluto.xko.dec.com>
To: "'www-security@ns2.Rutgers.EDU'" <www-security@ns2.rutgers.edu>,
"'ntsecurity@iss.net'" <ntsecurity@iss.net>,
"'Andrew R. Reese'" <Andy.Reese@reeseweb.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 09:52:55 +0530
Errors-To: owner-www-security@ns2.rutgers.edu
Sorry I may have been a bit biased but I based my assesment on a
internal document.....you are probably right.
>----------
>From: Andrew R. Reese[SMTP:Andy.Reese@reeseweb.com]
>Sent: Thursday, October 10, 1996 10:11 PM
>To: 'www-security@ns2.Rutgers.EDU'; 'ntsecurity@iss.net'
>Cc: Dev Kumar Roy
>Subject: Re: [NTSEC] Re: General Question
>
>Digital is not the only Windows-NT firewall on the market. Eagle-NT was
>actually the first Windows-NT firewall to Market, we have been
>delivering
>it since Feb, 1996. Fact: Eagle-NT was recognized as the Firewall
>Winner
>"Best of LAN TIMES - 1996", July 17, 1996, Issue. If you would like to
>read
>more about this firewall visit http://www.ReeseWeb.com/. We will be
>more
>than happy to send you a copy of this article... and many others that
>say
>the same thing.
>
>See for your self why Eagle-NT is the best, we have the installation
>and
>Configuration guides posted on line for your review.
>
>By the way, there are many firewall systems available now on NT. But
>which
>ones continue to be recognized in the industry as the best - time after
>time...
>
>- Andy
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Reese Web, Inc.
>Windows-NT Internet Security Systems
>http://www.ReeseWeb.com/
>(813) 286-7065
>
>----------
>From: Dev Kumar Roy <devroy@pluto.xko.dec.com>
>To: 'Roberto Galoppini' <rgaloppini@tim.it>; 'Paul D. Robertson'
><proberts@clark.net>
>Cc: 'Mike Earnshaw' <bigvern@ozemail.com.au>;
>'www-security@ns2.Rutgers.EDU'; 'ntsecurity@iss.net'
>Subject: RE: [NTSEC] Re: General Question
>Date: Thursday, October 10, 1996 1:01 AM
>
>Hi,
> Well I would like to say that altavista has come out with the only
>true
>firewall(whatever that means)on NT,maybe you should have a look at it
>as
>we know that Digital's Firewalls are legendary.
>
>Cheers
>
>Dev
>
>>----------
>>From: Paul D. Robertson[SMTP:proberts@clark.net]
>>Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 1996 7:39 AM
>>To: Roberto Galoppini
>>Cc: Mike Earnshaw; www-security@ns2.Rutgers.EDU; ntsecurity@iss.net
>>Subject: Re: [NTSEC] Re: General Question
>>
>>On Tue, 8 Oct 1996, Roberto Galoppini wrote:
>>
>>> Mike Earnshaw wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>> > 2. I have been tasked with setting up our companies Intranet/Internet
>>> > connection, whilst I am fairly confident with Windows NT, I know very
>>> > little about WWW Security. Bearing in mind point one above, what
>>> > considerations should I bear in mind when connecting our Intranet to
>the
>>> > Internet with NT v4.0 ( is v3.51 better ?) and Catapult.
>>
>>Catapult isn't meant to be a firewall, and at this point, being still
>>beta
>>code, shouldn't be used as such. If you don't know anything about
>>firewalls, I'd suggest a lot of research, or a couple of classes prior
>>to
>>starting.
>>
>>>
>>> Mhh.. NT v4.0 is that MICROSOFT product that allows UP TO TEN
>>> connections, isn't it? Why don't you have a look at the "MS NT
>>> Workstation 4.0 License Maintains Socket Limitation" by Tim O'Reilly
>>> (http://software.ora.com/news/msnt40_limit.html).
>>
>>NT Server doesn't have that limitation.
>>
>>>
>>> > 3. Regrettfully due to some clause somewhere, we have to primarily use
>MS
>>> > products, but if anyone can help with points of view for or against,
>>>and if
>>> > against some alternatives, to NT & Catapult - it would greatly improve
>my
>>> > chances of swaying the MD !!.
>>
>>Catapult isn't a firewall, and is still beta code, I'd not risk my
>>company
>>on it. There are also lots of complaints about it interacting with
>>Netscape browsers in the public MS newsgroups. If you *have* to go NT
>>(I'd also not use it for a firewall, because it's not mature enough for
>>my
>>tastes -- Yes, my firewall runs an *old* release of its OS -- also I've
>>seen enough complaints about unpredictable, or wrong behaviour on
>>multi-homed NT hosts to make me very wary of something like Catapult
>>which doesn't live under the OS in the network stack) you'd be better
>>off
>>with something like Firewall-1, or Raptor. Be sure to choose a good
>>reseller who can help you with configuration issues.
>>
>>Paul
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>-----
>>Paul D. Robertson "My statements in this message are personal
>>opinions
>>proberts@clark.net which may have no basis whatsoever in fact."
>>
>>PSB#9280
>>
>>
>
