"Noonan, Wesley" wrote: > > The original point of this tangent, IIRC, was in regards to > statements of "firewalls are only as strong as the OS". > Whether that OS is W2K, .NET, NT, Solaris, Linux, IOS, PIX OS, > CatOS, Xenix, QNX, BSD, LynxOS, or any other OS someone feels like > adding to the list, the statement is still valid.
Perfectly reasonable, although I think the reasoning behind "write your own OS for your firewall" (which is still an OS) is that, hopefully, it will be compact and specialized enough that you can trust it as much as the firewall itself. IMHO, that same point can be made about OSes that do nothing but disk/console I/O in a ~10KB kernel. I don't think it's really fair to clump such (non-)OSes together with NT, Solaris, Linux, BSD, etc. (And here is where I would have started griping about firewalling on general-purpose OSen if I hadn't been so damn tired ;)) �.02 <-- just testing your mua charsets, folks :) -- Mikael Olsson, Clavister AB Storgatan 12, Box 393, SE-891 28 �RNSK�LDSVIK, Sweden Phone: +46 (0)660 29 92 00 Mobile: +46 (0)70 26 222 05 Fax: +46 (0)660 122 50 WWW: http://www.clavister.com _______________________________________________ Firewalls mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.gnac.net/mailman/listinfo/firewalls
