Re: [fw-wiz] Proverbial appliance vs software based firewall
From: Paul D. Robertson (proberts@patriot.net)
Date: 10/16/02
- Next message: Stephen Gill: "RE: [fw-wiz] CERT vulnerability note VU# 539363"
- Previous message: Mikael Olsson: "Re: [fw-wiz] CERT vulnerability note VU# 539363"
- In reply to: Christopher Hicks: "Re: [fw-wiz] Proverbial appliance vs software based firewall"
- Next in thread: Bennett Todd: "[fw-wiz] Re: Proverbial appliance vs software based firewall"
- Reply: Bennett Todd: "[fw-wiz] Re: Proverbial appliance vs software based firewall"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
From: "Paul D. Robertson" <proberts@patriot.net> To: Christopher Hicks <chicks@chicks.net> Date: Wed Oct 16 09:20:02 2002
On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Christopher Hicks wrote:
> death importance, so I personally don't think the 'appliance' label
> applies to any firewall or security product in existance.
That battle has been lost...
>
> > What is not meaningless to security and function is kernel size,
>
> The size of the code of the whole firewall is important. People can
> easily make a tiny kernel (ding, a microkernel) and push all of the
> functionality out into modules. So, realistically you have to look at the
> entire code size to determine if they've made it adequately simple.
> Somebody should do a study of how simpler firewalls are less likely to
> break, but the vendors would be reticent to admit to their code size and
> it'd be hard to verify their answers if they were 'willing'.
Then again, another study of how folks who rewrite their own
implementations tend to recreate "solved" problems would be about as
interesting. While writing an OS that's designed to host the firewall
from the ground up isn't necessarily a bad thing, threading, memory
management, frag handling, packet ordering, NIC drivers, sequence number
handling and all the other stuff that needs doing is easy to make mistakes
in.
If you need to suddenly process a bunch more users because of say, an
acquisition- you can't just move the software on an appliance to a larger
box (granted, most IP things scale better horizontally than vertically,
but some things tend to have to have vertical scale points if they're
rushed into.) If you're doing proxies, and you want to add a new "cool"
thing that's totally necessary to the business' moving forward, you're not
going to be able to do that on a non-general purpose OS very easily.
That doesn't mean "appliance" firewalls aren't really useful, but it does
mean that like everything else, there are trade-offs and that's why I
still think firewall selection is something that requires not limiting
ones self to any particular catetory (appliance, non-appliance, SOHO,
personal...) without significant analysis.
As Mikael pointed out, the appliance code doesn't have to necessarily run
on an appliance too, so the distinction may be arbitrary in some
circumstances.
Paul
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul D. Robertson "My statements in this message are personal opinions
proberts@patriot.net which may have no basis whatsoever in fact."
probertson@trusecure.com Director of Risk Assessment TruSecure Corporation
- Next message: Stephen Gill: "RE: [fw-wiz] CERT vulnerability note VU# 539363"
- Previous message: Mikael Olsson: "Re: [fw-wiz] CERT vulnerability note VU# 539363"
- In reply to: Christopher Hicks: "Re: [fw-wiz] Proverbial appliance vs software based firewall"
- Next in thread: Bennett Todd: "[fw-wiz] Re: Proverbial appliance vs software based firewall"
- Reply: Bennett Todd: "[fw-wiz] Re: Proverbial appliance vs software based firewall"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|