Please contact me off list regarding a geolocation error.
--
Dan White
BTC Broadband
Network Admin Lead
Ph 918.366.0248 (direct) main: (918)366-8000
Fax 918.366.6610email: dwh...@olp.net
http://www.btcbroadband.com
PCI certification at the business level isn’t about whether your firewall
vendor has gone through an audit and paid someone.
You can build your own firewall if you wish and it must meet all of the
necessary requirements. So will a commercial firewall, because it’s certainly
possible to configur
On 6/May/16 21:40, Josh Reynolds wrote:
> I've been very happy with the 2.3 release. Modularizing everything and the
> new bootstrap GUI is very nice. Updated BSD code base is a godsend.
I was just about to ask the experienced coders whether the new GUI in
2.3 fixes a lot of problems of the pas
I've been very happy with the 2.3 release. Modularizing everything and the
new bootstrap GUI is very nice. Updated BSD code base is a godsend.
On May 6, 2016 2:36 PM, "Aris Lambrianidis" wrote:
> Mel Beckman wrote:
>
>> But bug reports and response can be measured, at least by those with
>> suppo
Mel Beckman wrote:
But bug reports and response can be measured, at least by those with
support contracts for the commercial products. I found PFSense less
reliable by a quite large margin than commercial offerings. Plus when
I have a problem, I can open a case and somebody else is working on i
But bug reports and response can be measured, at least by those with support
contracts for the commercial products. I found PFSense less reliable by a quite
large margin than commercial offerings. Plus when I have a problem, I can open
a case and somebody else is working on it (because I paid th
Mel Beckman wrote:
The question of code quality is always a difficult one, since in FOSS
it’s public and often found lacking, but in private source you may
never know. In these cases I rely on the vendor’s public statements
about their development processes and certifications (e.g., ICSA).
Com
Don't forget ponying up the fees and charges for paying the auditors -
which is why most OSS projects don't end up going through them.
On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 11:41 AM, Keith Stokes wrote:
> I've been told by various PCI auditors that a noncommercial/FOSS firewall
> could pass as long as you have
I've been told by various PCI auditors that a noncommercial/FOSS firewall could
pass as long as you have implemented the necessary controls such as
encryption/logging/management and passing actual testing.
--
Keith Stokes
> On May 6, 2016, at 1:31 PM, Mel Beckman wrote:
>
> The question of c
The question of code quality is always a difficult one, since in FOSS it’s
public and often found lacking, but in private source you may never know. In
these cases I rely on the vendor’s public statements about their development
processes and certifications (e.g., ICSA). Commercial products ofte
On 6/May/16 20:05, Aris Lambrianidis wrote:
> It still doesn't detract from the value of what people are aware of, in
> this case,
> pfSense code quality.
But the beauty is that with pfSense, you can do something about it, as
someone knowledgeable in coding.
Preferring a closed source option
On 6/May/16 20:05, Aris Lambrianidis wrote:
> It still doesn't detract from the value of what people are aware of, in
> this case,
> pfSense code quality.
But the beauty is that with pfSense, you can do something about it, as
someone knowledgeable in coding.
Preferring a close source option b
This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet
Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan.
The posting is sent to APOPS, NANOG, AfNOG, AusNOG, SANOG, PacNOG,
SAFNOG, PaNOG, SdNOG, BJNOG, CaribNOG and the RIPE Routing WG.
Daily listings are sent to bgp-st...@lists
amuse wrote:
> One question I have is: Is there any reason to believe that the source
> code for Sonicwall, Cisco, etc are any better than the PFSense code? Or
> are we just able to see the PFSense code and make unfounded assumptions
> that the commercial code is in better shape?
Perhaps not. In
On 6/May/16 18:59, amuse wrote:
> One question I have is: Is there any reason to believe that the source
> code for Sonicwall, Cisco, etc are any better than the PFSense code? Or
> are we just able to see the PFSense code and make unfounded assumptions
> that the commercial code is in better s
One question I have is: Is there any reason to believe that the source
code for Sonicwall, Cisco, etc are any better than the PFSense code? Or
are we just able to see the PFSense code and make unfounded assumptions
that the commercial code is in better shape?
On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Mel
I, too, was not impressed with PFSense’s code. I’ve had to dig into it a couple
of times to troubleshoot weird failure modes. I finally gave up. My time is too
valuable, and the price of modern firewalls is fair for the value you get in
serious regression testing and support.
Also, I would not
amuse wrote:
> +1 to a "Can you substantiate that claim please?" sentiment here. I've
> used it for years and found it to be reliable, flexible, feature-filled.
> And having the BSD CLI fully available has been a godsend.
The code quality is terrible in a 1990s sort of way. I.e. no separation
of
+1 to a "Can you substantiate that claim please?" sentiment here. I've
used it for years and found it to be reliable, flexible, feature-filled.
And having the BSD CLI fully available has been a godsend.
On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 12:01 AM, Mark Tinka wrote:
>
>
> On 6/May/16 02:18, g...@1337.io wro
you mean there's an outages.org outage? [sorry]
On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 10:32 PM, Nathan Schrenk wrote:
> It looks like www.outages.org stopped being updated with outage data in
> January 2013?
>
> Nathan
>
> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 3:57 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
>
> >
> > > On May 4, 2016, at 4:3
On 6/May/16 02:18, g...@1337.io wrote:
> If you are considering pfSense, I would urge you to look at OPNsense
> instead. The pfSense code is horrible!
Can you explain?
We've been reasonably happy with it, running it since 2012 on dozens of
boxes for our corporate network and as OpenVPN servers
On 5/May/16 19:53, Ken Chase wrote:
> Looking around at different SMB firewalls to standardize on so we can start
> training up our level 2/3 techs instead of dealing with a mess of different
> vendors
> at cust premises.
>
> I've run into a few firewalls that were not sip or 323 friendly howev
22 matches
Mail list logo
