RE: Security for new small company

From: David Ellis (dellis@unicam.com)
Date: 01/11/02 

From: David Ellis <dellis@unicam.com>
To: 'Chip McClure' <vhm3@hades.gigguardian.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 14:31:17 -0500

Hi, In regards to your statement about a netgear router. A device that does
nat and port forwarding is not a firewall. Easily hackable. There is no
rulebase in one of those things. You could easily get the cisco pix or as I
prefer a checkpoint FW1 for small business. I am very big on checkpoint and
it has got a lot more features then a cisco pix.

Sincerely,

David Ellis
Systems/Security Engineer
MCSE, CCSE, CCNA, CCA

-----Original Message-----
From: Chip McClure [mailto:vhm3@hades.gigguardian.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 1:06 PM
To: Ben
Cc: security-basics@securityfocus.com
Subject: Re: Security for new small company

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hello Ben,

A lot of it depends on your budget for the resources you need. If you plan
on keeping the DSL connection to your office, not expanding to a
fractional or full T1, I'd reccomend the Netgear line of firewall /
routers. I personally use a Netgear RO-318 for my home office, and it does
a great job. I do my own email, and web site from here as well. It is a
very inexpensive solution (around $175), and allows for full NAT (for a
/24 subnet) and port redirection. Also allows for 1 computer to have all
traffic inbound sent to it.

I'd honestly stay away from windows software based firewalls if it is at
all possible.

Chip

- -----
Chip McClure
Sr. Unix Administrator
GigGuardian, Inc.

http://www.gigguardian.com/
- -----

On 9 Jan 2002, Ben wrote:

>
>
> Hi,
>
> I work for a new small company, and have been
> asked to look into security with regard to our LAN and
> web connection. I am from a technical background
> but could do with some advice in the security area.
>
> Our LAN is a w2k domain with 10 clients all running
> win2k. We are going to have a DSL connection put in
> soon and i'm thinking about firewalls and
> server 'locking down'.
>
> Ideally we would like a hardware soloution for the
> firewall, at present our website + email is with a
> hosting company. Within 12-18 months though this
> may change to hosting the site + email ourselves.
>
> Could anybody recommend firewalls/security
> products - and what ever soloution we go for what
> must they be able to do?
>
> Many thanks
>
> Ben
>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.8
Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76

iQA/AwUBPD3YEJuKtP8CSC69EQK4zgCdFpLTdTV3FEkzF3BZ6NRzUHdYrRIAoPXy
Xuyr9AtgXe1qPULt57jbFKq2
=xt45
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Windows 98 box is owned; Re:
    ... I consider NetGear and LinkSys to be ... piggy-backing on an install) is deception with an ActiveX prompt. ... >> for a true hardware firewall. ... >> My argument wasn't that home users needed a true hardware firewall. ...
    (Security-Basics)
  • Re: Are you protected by NAT?
    ... You have two things: NAT and firewall. ... _private_ network that is not to be accessible from the Internet. ... setting port forwarding up, you break this rule, making internal hosts ...
    (comp.security.firewalls)
  • Re: Are you protected by NAT?
    ... You have two things: NAT and firewall. ... _private_ network that is not to be accessible from the Internet. ... setting port forwarding up, you break this rule, making internal hosts ...
    (comp.security.firewalls)
  • RE: NAT firewalls possibly insecure by nature?
    ... I tend to disagree with this statement about nat being a one way firewall. ... You do one type of port forwarding through nat and you whole network could ... It does nothing to protect you from ...
    (Focus-Microsoft)
  • Re: Error 721
    ... Well, if you are confident that the Netgear FVS328 is the problem, I would ... Haven't had any problems yet with SP3 and VPN, ... you are talking about a Win2k3 server behind a router ... Is there a firewall rule on the remote computer causing problems? ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
Quantcast