> -----Urspr�ngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Brian Steele [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Gesendet am: Mittwoch, 2. Juni 1999 18:47
> An: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Betreff: RE: Why not NT?
>
>
> It seems that people are mis-reading my last message. Or perhaps I didn't
> explain myself clearly - more likely the latter, as I should've perhaps
> used
> "implementing", instead of "employing" :-).
>
> When referring to companies who've successfully employing, er,
> implementing,
> firewalls on NT, I was referring to those that have created and are
> selling
> firewall products that run on the NT platform. There are a host of them.
> Including Microsoft's Proxy Server (gd&r).
>
> Obviously these companies have a different view regarding NT's security.
>
> IMHO, the anti-NT crowd needs to stop brown-nosing each other concerning
> the
> "insecurity of NT". If they're REALLY interested, then I suggest to them,
> take your fingers out, look at the NT-based Firewall products, then
> provide
> opinions about same. If one of these products running on the NT platform
> proves to be insecure, then I'm sure many of us would be interested in
> this
> information, as we would about any other firewall applications that prove
> to
> be insecure.
>
[Kunz, Peter] No one is saying anything against the FW products on
NT, but instead pointing out that putting a good FW on a "bad" platform is a
bad idea.
> However, I, and am sure many others, are not interested in the usual
> pontification concerning NT and its security. Those who know better know
> that the security of a system is primarily dependent on who's
> administering
> that system and how it's been implemented, not the OS.
>
>
[Kunz, Peter] Agreed, however, the OS is a part of the FW
architecture/implementation. It's not a part of the FW product
implementation itself.
cu
-pete
-
[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
