On Mon, 28 Dec 1998, Tom Neff wrote:
> > Security: 350
> > Ease of use/installation: 300 (almost as high as security!)
> > Features: 250
> > Performance: 100
> >
> > The score for security is about 1/3 of the total score. I submit that
> > someone hasn't thought through the function of a firewall.
>
> I agree that security shouldn't be "weighted" in a mix with unrelated factors.
> But I do think that completeness of security is a legitimate factor in the
> buying decision, since the project being protected may have a limited budget --
> and a manageable downside in case of sustained attack.
>
> I also think that ease of use is important, because a difficult interface
Installation isn't the same as ease of use though. Many places can
"afford" to have a system installed correctly, but may not have a
professional day-to-day administrator. A firewall with "must be
professionally installed" on its reviews can still be a better choice
than one which is easy to install.
> increases the likelihood that important components in a theoretically high
> security rating will be misconfigured or go unused, thus lowering the overall
> security of the system.
Then again, there's the downside of it being too easy to open access to
protocols that probably shouldn't be, so there's somewhat of an offset
there.
Paul
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul D. Robertson "My statements in this message are personal opinions
[EMAIL PROTECTED] which may have no basis whatsoever in fact."
PSB#9280
-
[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
