micl
Visit Lovely Downtown Port Starboard
Premium
join:2001-10-25
Silver Spring, MD
| reply to Steve
Re: FIRST POST
I remember when a firewall meant it blocked in-bound *and* outbound. If it just blocks in-bound, is it really a firewall just because someone calls it a firewall? Or is it just NAT?
--
If I don't see you in the future, I'll see you in the pasture |
|
Steve
I'm a PC, so shut up
Consultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
| said by micl  :I remember when a firewall meant it blocked in-bound *and* outbound. That's never been the definition: a firewall is a device which applies access policy to network traffic, and the administrator can define it in any direction as he wishes.
In 1994 I was setting up Livingston Portmaster routers with fairly extensive filtering rules, and just because I chose to employ no outbound protection doesn't mean that it wasn't a firewall.
And the XP firewall isn't do NAT anyway.
Steve
--
Stephen J. Friedl • Unix Wizard • Microsoft Security MVP • Tustin, California USA • my web site |
|
AnonName
@kaballero.com
| Ah, the Portmaster... I remember them well. I managed a few of them.
Great device, I liked it better than the Cisco 52xx and 53xx RAS servers but a hundred and twenty modems is just a mess of wires and cables.
Ever work with a DiGi board? I still have a couple of those around 
-m-
The complements were intended not snide. I'm looking to bury the hatchet, not sharpen it.
|
|
