Re: about viruswall?

From: chort (chort_at_amaunetsgothique.com)
Date: 09/21/03

  • Next message: Mitchell: "RE: port 6060"
    To: Gabriel Orozco <gabriel_orozco@mx.sumida.com>
    Date: 21 Sep 2003 00:30:15 -0700
    
    

    On Wed, 2003-09-10 at 08:50, Gabriel Orozco wrote:
    > Thanks, Sebastian
    >
    > It was the concept what I did not understood, since as you pointed, I use
    > Linux + QMail + qmailscan + fprot to scan virus, and in the chain of events,
    > no email will pass without being checked for virus first.
    >
    > I update twice every hour, and since I had no problems with email more than
    > the tons of warnings of viruses deleted I receive from qmailscan since I'm
    > the postmaster.
    >
    > so, this is the same concept of a Viruswall. Then I keep saying the same:
    > With an antivitus running in your SMTP server is more than enough.
    >
    > but you first need to choose carefully which solution to use. It seems that
    > Linux+{QMail | Postfix | Exim | Sendmail } is a better way to go
    >
    > Best Regards
    > Gabriel
    >

    That is a very good solution, but I would still say that it's better in
    principle to scan incoming traffic of any kind in the DMZ, before
    allowing it to your internal network. I'm loath to let any protocols
    have direct access to the internal net and the internal machines, simply
    because a single compromise will essentially open your entire network to
    attack.

    Even "secure" boxes can be compromised, as hinted at by the latest
    patches for OpenSSH. I'm very glad I discontinued ssh access from the
    outside to my internal net, and instead forced it to terminate in the
    DMZ (with no DMZ -> LAN access). The latest Sendmail exploits are
    another excellent reason why not to allow traffic directly into your
    internal net.

    Of course, due to budget, topology, politics, etc it's not always
    possible to setup your network like that, but it is the "best practice"
    (that goes for any service, HTTP, FTP, DNS, etc).
     

    -- 
    Brian Keefer
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    

  • Next message: Mitchell: "RE: port 6060"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: Pocket PC on wireless network
      ... Do not enter gateway information in the networks ... > I am able to connect to my internal wireless network via my HP Pocket PC, ... > out of the internal net. ...
      (microsoft.public.pocketpc)
    • SBS with only a network card
      ... card and config first as internal net and second as external net. ... With SBS 2003 Standard. ... I've only a network card. ...
      (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
    • Re: IPTables and MSCluster Service
      ... Why do you nat between the DMZ and your internal net in the ... -j MASQUERADE ...
      (comp.os.linux.networking)