Re: One for the Security Guru's

[Stephen Satchell]

At 09:38 AM 10/24/02 +0000, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
>So you should've bought a more expensive firewall that offers protocol
>based forwarding instead of being a simple packet filter.
>
>packet filter != firewall. That's the main lie behind most of the
>"Linux based" firewalls.
>
>Get the real thing. Checkpoint. PIX. But that's a little
>more expensive than "xxx firewall based on Linux".

OK, I don't advertise that I'm the "know-it-all" when it comes to security, 
and in the State of Nevada (USA) I'm not allowed to advertise as a 
"security consultant" without a special license from the Private 
Investigator's License Board.

I have a firewall running on 2.4.18 (Red Hat 7.3/Valhalla with updates) 
which is (on an experimental basis) doing port-number-based forwarding to a 
Web server.  The idea is that the Web server is *not* directly on the 'Net, 
but is instead  behind a firewall that steers incoming traffic to it on two 
specific ports:  80 and 443.  (Yes, I installed the slapper on the Web 
server.)  This was done using IPTABLES.

I've also been experimenting with the traffic limiting capabilities, as one 
co-locate provider offers discounts for guaranteed lower bandwidth 
utilization, so by limiting the bandwidth using IPTABLES I should be able 
to cut my co-lo costs to 1/3 of what they would be with "unlimited" bandwidth.

I've worked with the PIX, and I don't see what I'm missing in features 
between the PIX and Linux/IPTABLES.  I'm sure there is something.  Please 
amplify on your comments.