[fw-wiz] RE: firewall-wizards digest, Vol 1 #1077 - 2 msgs

From: Jeff B (bolesjb_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 09/05/03

  • Next message: Brian Recore: "RE: [fw-wiz] RE: Router Internet Monitoring"
    To: <firewall-wizards@honor.icsalabs.com>
    Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 18:39:07 -0700
    
    

    Now a VPN firewall failing closed is an interesting idea. What if you had a
    VPN firewall which identified bandwidth used over time per client
    connection, and if it exceeded some maximum value, cranked down the
    allocated bandwidth? Can think of multiple internal points this would be
    useful in, in hindsight after the worm incidents of the last few weeks. I
    think LightSpeed System's Total Traffic Control can do this, and could
    probably be done with snort and some other tools, but would be interesting
    to do this with more mainstream devices.

    --------------------------
    Subject: Re: Re: [fw-wiz] Use of firewalls in networks of today (Was: Re:
    Setting up H323 IP telephony etc )
    From: "Victoria of Borg" <vicofborg@myrealbox.com>
    To: firewall-wizards@honor.icsalabs.com
    Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2003 20:55:12 -0500

    [snip]
    > Exactly. And as we've all said before, a firewall is only so
    > good. Take t=
    > hese worms that propegate over tcp/135. Any firewall worth
    > its price blo=
    > cks that one. Unless it is an internal fireall on a VPN/RAS
    > network and =
    > the users need to get at their drives, of course. Then it's
    > like so much=
    > tissue. Actually, in our case it was more like a fuse than
    > anything; t=
    > he ping-flood melted the firewall so bad it failed closed.
    [snip]

    _______________________________________________
    firewall-wizards mailing list
    firewall-wizards@honor.icsalabs.com
    http://honor.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards


  • Next message: Brian Recore: "RE: [fw-wiz] RE: Router Internet Monitoring"