All these points are valid, but there's also the group mentality to
consider, which means that the best product isn't always the one which
gets implemented on a large scale. NetWare 3.12 was a pleasure to work
with, as was NetWare 4.11.
And I have to disagree about MS products making good doorstops, the
boxes are flimsy and the documentation is thin. Now a Toshiba laptop
makes an excellent doorstop, perhaps with an MS manual crammed into it
to keep the lid halfway up :-)
--
Jack Coates, Rainfinity SE
e: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
t: 650-962-5301
m: 650-280-4376
Richard Thornton wrote:
>
> Well I never thought I was say this, but I agree. There are many factors to
>consider when putting together any solution. I am a true Unix bigot, but there are
>times when it makes sense to go with another solution. (Please don't tell anyone at
> my company I said this, I have a rep to maintain...) :-) If the person charged
>with the task doesn't have the necessary skill set to support Unix and the other OS
>will do the job, does it really make sense to put in a Unix solution? Don't
> get me wrong, I hate MicroSoft. I really believe it to be a third rate product, but
>there are times when it makes sense to use it. I have yet to find a better door stop
>than MicroSoft products. <grin>
>
> Regards, Richard Thornton
>
> "McMeekin, Scott" wrote:
>
> > NT is perfectly capable of serving as a firewall. Don't let the "my OS can
> > batter your OS" idiots confuse you. I've been a UNIX guy for years and
> > years, but even I have to say that NT and UNIX are similar from a security
> > perspective in one undeniable aspect: your system will only be as secure if
> > it is configured properly. Throw a couple of nice fast processors and a
> > decent HD or two at NT and you have a perfectly good firewall platform. Sun
> > will do nicely too - as long as you have the skill resources available to
> > support it and secure it properly. Before you go believing arbitrary
> > statements from people about the security of an OS, do your own cost and
> > risk assessments. Consider how much it would cost to employ a dedicated UNIX
> > resource against giving your existing NT guys additional security training.
> >
> > The whole "UNIX vs NT" argument is a complete waste of time. I love unix,
> > and I'll admit to being biased towards the Solaris and for preference the
> > Nokia solutions because when I'm administering them, I know what's going on
> > all the time, unlike the pseudo-black box nature of NT, coupled with a
> > deep-rooted mistrust of all things Microsoft (I'm waiting for them to
> > release their own firewall software with a bloody flight sim hidden in it).
> > However, if you already have a dedicated and strong NT skillset within your
> > company, you might as well consider just having an NT firewall.
> >
> > Scott.
> >
> > -============================-
> > Scott McMeekin (x25086)
> > Senior Technical Analyst
> > IT Telecoms
> > The Royal Bank of Scotland
> > Phone: +44(0)1315235086
> > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > -============================-
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Matt Little [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2000 10:06 AM
> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Subject: [FW1] Evidence of NT security problems?
> > >
> > >
> > > *** Warning : This message originates from the Internet ***
> > >
> > >
> > > Hello all,
> > >
> > > We have NT firewalls and expertise here and the general opinion is to
> > > stick with that as it the the OS we have most knowledge in.
> > >
> > > However, we have been advised that NT is 'full of holes' and UNIX is the
> > > most secure OS and we do have some knowledge of UNIX.
> > >
> > > I'm aware that there are performance advantages of running FW-1 on UNIX,
> > > but that aside, I was wondering if anyone has, or could point me to, any
> > > evidence of running FW-1 on NT as being a serious security problem.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Matt Little
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ==========================================================================
> > > ======
> > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, please see the instructions at
> > > http://www.checkpoint.com/services/mailing.html
> > > ==========================================================================
> > > ======
> >
> > The Royal Bank of Scotland plc is registered in Scotland No 90312. Registered
>Office: 36 St Andrew Square, Edinburgh EH2 2YB.
> >
> > The Royal Bank of Scotland plc is regulated by IMRO, SFA and Personal Investment
>Authority.
> >
> > This e-mail message is confidential and for use by the addressee only. If the
>message is received by anyone other than the addressee, please return the message to
>the sender by replying to it and then delete the message from your computer.
> >
> > 'Internet e-mails are not necessarily secure. The Royal Bank of Scotland plc does
>not accept responsibility for changes made to this message after it was sent.'
> >
> > ================================================================================
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, please see the instructions at
> > http://www.checkpoint.com/services/mailing.html
> > ================================================================================
>
> ================================================================================
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, please see the instructions at
> http://www.checkpoint.com/services/mailing.html
> ================================================================================
================================================================================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, please see the instructions at
http://www.checkpoint.com/services/mailing.html
================================================================================
