Well I never thought I was say this, but I agree. There are many factors to consider
when putting together any solution. I am a true Unix bigot, but there are times when
it makes sense to go with another solution. (Please don't tell anyone at
my company I said this, I have a rep to maintain...) :-) If the person charged with
the task doesn't have the necessary skill set to support Unix and the other OS will do
the job, does it really make sense to put in a Unix solution? Don't
get me wrong, I hate MicroSoft. I really believe it to be a third rate product, but
there are times when it makes sense to use it. I have yet to find a better door stop
than MicroSoft products. <grin>
Regards, Richard Thornton
"McMeekin, Scott" wrote:
> NT is perfectly capable of serving as a firewall. Don't let the "my OS can
> batter your OS" idiots confuse you. I've been a UNIX guy for years and
> years, but even I have to say that NT and UNIX are similar from a security
> perspective in one undeniable aspect: your system will only be as secure if
> it is configured properly. Throw a couple of nice fast processors and a
> decent HD or two at NT and you have a perfectly good firewall platform. Sun
> will do nicely too - as long as you have the skill resources available to
> support it and secure it properly. Before you go believing arbitrary
> statements from people about the security of an OS, do your own cost and
> risk assessments. Consider how much it would cost to employ a dedicated UNIX
> resource against giving your existing NT guys additional security training.
>
> The whole "UNIX vs NT" argument is a complete waste of time. I love unix,
> and I'll admit to being biased towards the Solaris and for preference the
> Nokia solutions because when I'm administering them, I know what's going on
> all the time, unlike the pseudo-black box nature of NT, coupled with a
> deep-rooted mistrust of all things Microsoft (I'm waiting for them to
> release their own firewall software with a bloody flight sim hidden in it).
> However, if you already have a dedicated and strong NT skillset within your
> company, you might as well consider just having an NT firewall.
>
> Scott.
>
> -============================-
> Scott McMeekin (x25086)
> Senior Technical Analyst
> IT Telecoms
> The Royal Bank of Scotland
> Phone: +44(0)1315235086
> Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -============================-
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Matt Little [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2000 10:06 AM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: [FW1] Evidence of NT security problems?
> >
> >
> > *** Warning : This message originates from the Internet ***
> >
> >
> > Hello all,
> >
> > We have NT firewalls and expertise here and the general opinion is to
> > stick with that as it the the OS we have most knowledge in.
> >
> > However, we have been advised that NT is 'full of holes' and UNIX is the
> > most secure OS and we do have some knowledge of UNIX.
> >
> > I'm aware that there are performance advantages of running FW-1 on UNIX,
> > but that aside, I was wondering if anyone has, or could point me to, any
> > evidence of running FW-1 on NT as being a serious security problem.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Matt Little
> >
> >
> >
> > ==========================================================================
> > ======
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, please see the instructions at
> > http://www.checkpoint.com/services/mailing.html
> > ==========================================================================
> > ======
>
> The Royal Bank of Scotland plc is registered in Scotland No 90312. Registered
>Office: 36 St Andrew Square, Edinburgh EH2 2YB.
>
> The Royal Bank of Scotland plc is regulated by IMRO, SFA and Personal Investment
>Authority.
>
> This e-mail message is confidential and for use by the addressee only. If the
>message is received by anyone other than the addressee, please return the message to
>the sender by replying to it and then delete the message from your computer.
>
> 'Internet e-mails are not necessarily secure. The Royal Bank of Scotland plc does
>not accept responsibility for changes made to this message after it was sent.'
>
> ================================================================================
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, please see the instructions at
> http://www.checkpoint.com/services/mailing.html
> ================================================================================
================================================================================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, please see the instructions at
http://www.checkpoint.com/services/mailing.html
================================================================================
