On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 08:50:21PM +0800, Robert Storey wrote: > Everything I've ever read indicates that a hardware-based firewall is > more secure and reliable than an PC operating system, be it Linux or > Windows. A PC OS has to be complex because it has so many functions to > perform, but that adds potential security holes and one can never close > them all. Furthermore, Intel-based PCs have some well-known exploits > (such as buffer overflows) which are a function of the hardware and > there is no real cure because changing the CPU instructions would break > backward compatibility. By contrast, a router operating system is very > simple and designed to do only one thing, and the hardware (which has no > moving parts) is more reliable and uses far less electricity than a PC. > > A Linux-based firewall is probably good enough for the average home > hobbyist, but in a professional environment it doesn't pay to "save > money" by recycling an old PC with Linux installed in place of a router. > > regards, > Robert
Hmm... I'm not an expert and this is my understanding of software and hardware firewalls. A hardware firewall would probably be more reliable - the security part is debatable. A firewall is a firewall - it's security comes from its configuration. An cutdown firewall/router machine with minimal services can be just as secure as hardware firewall. The advantage of hardware firewall - most likely speed - specialised hardware to deal with packet processing and the like. This won't be an issue if you're a home user with a few machines but for corporate use, with lots of machines and traffic, you want things to be speedy and more efficient. -- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
