[3215] in WWW Security List Archive
RE: [NTSEC] Re: General Question
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Andrew Cameron)
Fri Oct 11 19:09:54 1996
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 20:02:47 +0200 (GMT+0200)
From: Andrew Cameron <andrew@andy.alt.za>
To: Dev Kumar Roy <devroy@pluto.xko.dec.com>
cc: "'Roberto Galoppini'" <rgaloppini@tim.it>,
"'Paul D. Robertson'" <proberts@clark.net>,
"'Mike Earnshaw'" <bigvern@ozemail.com.au>,
"'www-security@ns2.Rutgers.EDU'" <www-security@ns2.rutgers.edu>,
"'ntsecurity@iss.net'" <ntsecurity@iss.net>
In-Reply-To: <c=US%a=_%p=dec%l=PLUTO-961010050115Z-5@pluto.xko.dec.com>
Errors-To: owner-www-security@ns2.rutgers.edu
One of the best NT Firewalls I know of is Raptor. Have a look at
www.raptor.com
On Thu, 10 Oct 1996, Dev Kumar Roy wrote:
> 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
> >
> >
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Cameron
Internet : andrew@andy.alt.za
X.400 : C=ZA G=Andrew S=Cameron Admd=TELKOM400
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
