Re: [fw-wiz] X server in a Firewall
- From: Cat Okita <cat@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 22:58:06 -0500 (EST)
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006, Paul D. Robertson wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006, Cat Okita wrote:Down the hall? Must be nice. I'm thinking "to another continent".Still doesn't preclued out of band access.
Nope.
That doesn't mean transport and management have to mix.Frankly while I agree that firewall management should be done out of band, there are certainly situations where physical access is not a straightforward means of out of band access - and the environment is legitimately dynamic.
I'm in complete agreement - just pointing out that there are ways other than sneakernet to handle management access.
As for the OP (whose name I've now forgotten), using X to manage your firewall on the same interface as the traffic you're ostensibly defending against is - well - dumb.
cheers! ========================================================================== "A cat spends her life conflicted between a deep, passionate and profound desire for fish and an equally deep, passionate and profound desire to avoid getting wet. This is the defining metaphor of my life right now." _______________________________________________ firewall-wizards mailing list firewall-wizards@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://honor.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards
- References:
- Re: [fw-wiz] X server in a Firewall
- From: Paul D. Robertson
- Re: [fw-wiz] X server in a Firewall
- Prev by Date: Re: [fw-wiz] X server in a Firewall
- Next by Date: Re: [fw-wiz] RE: IDS (was: FW appliance comparison)
- Previous by thread: Re: [fw-wiz] X server in a Firewall
- Next by thread: RE: [fw-wiz] X server in a Firewall
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|