----- Original Message -----
From: "Jonathan Chen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "fbsd_user" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Micheal Patterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 11:20 PM
Subject: Re: ipfw/nated stateful rules example
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 09:18:27PM -0500, fbsd_user wrote:
> > Yes you are making it work, but not work
> > correctly. In the true security sense, this is un-secure and
> > invalidates the whole purpose of using keep-state rules at all. This
> > would never be allowed by an real firewall security professional.
>
> I'm curious as to why you'd consider it insecure. How would applying
> the keep-state rules on the public IP be anymore secure that using it
> on the internal IP? The mechanism works the same regardless. You
> haven't provided an case as to why you think it is unsecure.
> --
> Jonathan Chen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
That's what I'm trying to figure out. As far as I can tell, it's working
exactly how I want it to work. My public IP traffic is stateful from the
firewall to the world and the LAN traffic is stateful to the world. I'd just
like to hear what the firewall security professional would have to say about
it.
--
Micheal Patterson
Network Administration
TSG Incorporated
405-917-0600
_______________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
