FirewallWizards
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [fw-wiz] Firewall bake-off?

To: "Firewall Wizards Security Mailing List" <firewall-wizards@listserv.icsalabs.com>
Subject: Re: [fw-wiz] Firewall bake-off?
From: "Jim MacLeod" <jmacleod@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 13:03:30 -0700
Delivered-to: sp-com-lists@consult.net
Delivered-to: fwwizards-list2@consult.net
Delivered-to: firewall-wizards@listserv.icsalabs.com
In-reply-to: <6.2.0.14.2.20070319150730.040d0b60@ranum.com>
List-archive: <https://listserv.icsalabs.com/pipermail/firewall-wizards>
List-help: <mailto:firewall-wizards-request@listserv.icsalabs.com?subject=help>
List-id: Firewall Wizards Security Mailing List <firewall-wizards.listserv.icsalabs.com>
List-post: <mailto:firewall-wizards@listserv.icsalabs.com>
List-subscribe: <https://listserv.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards>, <mailto:firewall-wizards-request@listserv.icsalabs.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <https://listserv.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards>, <mailto:firewall-wizards-request@listserv.icsalabs.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <948caa7e0703121637sa283960n552ec4e14900666f@mail.gmail.com> <1CE69584EC644F40B2D9B69003C56AD91F9D025B1B@carbon.japrinting.com> <dc718edc0703181946r2052f437v5afe6d84fc8417f7@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.0.14.2.20070319150730.040d0b60@ranum.com>
Reply-to: Firewall Wizards Security Mailing List <firewall-wizards@listserv.icsalabs.com>
Sender: firewall-wizards-bounces@listserv.icsalabs.com
On 3/19/07, Marcus J. Ranum <mjr@ranum.com> wrote:
> [...] if someone starts talking about PPS as a firewall
> benchmark, they may as well hold up a big sign that reads:
> "I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT A FIREWALL DOES"

Meaning no disrespect, it must also be stated that many companies have
a business need for their networks to be both Secure and Fast.

I am reminded of the argument that Telnet is a terrible protocol,
because it has a huge amount of protocol overhead per byte of payload.
 The protocol MUST operate that way to provide rapid user feedback.
Everything has its strengths and weaknesses.

Similarly, a layer 7 proxy does not provide any more security than a
layer 4 stateful packet filter - for a given protocol - if the layer 7
element does not enforce rules for that protocol.  My favorite example
is ssh: port forwarding allows a lot of sins to be hidden from
centralized access control, but "it's encrypted, so it must be
secure."  (Yes, there are ssh proxies that can address this, but
they're not a common feature in firewalls.)

Anyone who focuses purely on speed in a firewall will arguably gain
nothing, as any potential improvement in security is nullified by a
false sense of confidence.  Anyone who completely neglects speed in a
firewall will arguably hurt their security posture by contributing to
the perception that security slows down your network, thus encouraging
end users - or even worse, CIOs - to attempt to bypass it.

-Jim
_______________________________________________
firewall-wizards mailing list
firewall-wizards@listserv.icsalabs.com
https://listserv.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>