RE: Firewall and DMZ topology
From: Storment, Brandon (Brandon.Storment_at_wipp.ws)
Date: 06/11/03
- Previous message: David Gillett: "RE: Locking down workstation"
- Maybe in reply to: William J. Burgos: "Firewall and DMZ topology"
- Next in thread: Chris Berry: "Re: Firewall and DMZ topology"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
To: security-basics@securityfocus.com Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 09:47:04 -0600
I'm comming into this discussion a little late, and have browsed through
most of the thread and agree with most of the statements made. Through out
my experience in the security field and a vast study of firewalls and dmz's
i have come to the conclusion that a tri-homed system (utilizing nat) in the
long run is the easiest and cheapest way to go, and i do believe that it is
as secure as a two firewall system approach due to the fact of human
failure. Meaning having two firewalls with two different rule sets on two
diffrent systems will open up a greater risk of human failure within the
managing of the systems.
Brandon
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evaluating SSL VPNs' Consider NEOTERIS, chosen as leader by top analysts!
The Gartner Group just put Neoteris in the top of its Magic Quadrant,
while InStat has confirmed Neoteris as the leader in marketshare.
Find out why, and see how you can get plug-n-play secure remote access in
about an hour, with no client, server changes, or ongoing maintenance.
Visit us at: http://www.neoteris.com/promos/sf-6-9.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Previous message: David Gillett: "RE: Locking down workstation"
- Maybe in reply to: William J. Burgos: "Firewall and DMZ topology"
- Next in thread: Chris Berry: "Re: Firewall and DMZ topology"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
