[3218] in WWW Security List Archive
RE: [NTSEC] Re: General Question
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Gene Lee)
Sat Oct 12 02:42:35 1996
From: Gene Lee <genel@inforamp.net>
To: "'www-security@ns2.Rutgers.EDU'" <www-security@ns2.rutgers.edu>,
"'ntsecurity@iss.net'" <ntsecurity@iss.net>,
"'Andrew R. Reese'"
<Andy.Reese@ReeseWeb.Com>,
"'Dev Kumar Roy'"
<devroy@pluto.xko.dec.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 1996 00:33:20 -0400
Errors-To: owner-www-security@ns2.rutgers.edu
Sorry Dev, but you're wrong on this count as well. Check out Firewall/Plus
v2.1 for NT, which has been evaluated and approved by the NCSA.
http://www.ncsa.com/fpfs/net_1.html
Not to sound confrontational, but one would start to doubt the verity of
the term "legendary" when you use it, based on all the misinformation
surrounding your posts...
On Friday, October 11, 1996 1:23 AM, Dev Kumar
Roy[SMTP:devroy@pluto.xko.dec.com] wrote:
>But it is the first NCSA and only NCSA certified firewall....
>
>>----------
>>From: Dev Kumar Roy
>>Sent: Friday, October 11, 1996 9:52 AM
>>To: 'www-security@ns2.Rutgers.EDU'; 'ntsecurity@iss.net'; 'Andrew R.
>>Reese'
>>Subject: RE: [NTSEC] Re: General Question
>>
>>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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
--
Gene Lee
genel@inforamp.net
genelee@vnet.ibm.com
