On Monday 17 November 2003 09:36 am, Derek Jennings wrote: > On Monday 17 Nov 2003 4:55 am, Sharrea Day wrote: > > On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 17:02, Richard Babcock wrote: > > > Greetings everyone, > > > I am currently using ML 9.1 and shorewall with a 160g hd as both file > > > server and firewall. It occurs to me that this could be a flawed design > > > or at least one inviting trouble. > > > For example, if one machine fails I lose both the internet and my > > > files. Also, it seems bad form to have my precious files 'right there' > > > with the firewall. > > > I have enough machinery on hand to allow me to put the file server in > > > one box and the firewall in another. I would appreciate the opinions of > > > others on this. Feel free to engage in religious discussions. > > > One last thing (as Columbo would say). I went with shorewall because of > > > the sheer volume of information about it available on the internet. ML > > > also has a firewall of it's own does it not? Can anyone help me compare > > > the two? > > The firewall in Mandrake *is* shorewall. > But the front end GUI Mandrake have tacked on is not great, and often sets > up shorewall incorrectly. It is much easier to set up shorewall by hand > with reference to www.shorewall.net, or by using the webmin module. > > derek my .02$usd.. MUCH better Idea to have a separate box for firewall/router, and keep files on and inside box... Mandrakes mnf 'should' *be the ticket* for that firewall box, and 9.1 or 9.2 is fine for the fileserver. Actually the firewall _is_ IPtables, and is at the kernel level and shorewall is a configuration tool. keep shorewall fully configured on the file server too....just in case, and since there is no real noticeable negative. can't be too safe with your data.
ET
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
