- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
When RFC's Attack - More Laughs From Cyberspace
|
|
Comments (7)
@techiem2: Don't you know firewalls only need to block incoming traffic? That's what the XP SP2 filewall does - only block incoming.
lol.
Yeah, there's obviously no need to block college students from accessing the faculty and staff subnets...I mean..they wouldn't mess anything up would they?
It isn't the job of the students' firewall to keep the students out of the faculty and staff subnet. It's the job of the faculty+staff firewall to keep the students (and other unauthorized parties) out.
If those two sentences are a spaghetti mess of semantics, I apologize.
If those two sentences are a spaghetti mess of semantics, I apologize.
Quoting:It isn't the job of the students' firewall to keep the students out of the faculty and staff subnet. It's the job of the faculty+staff firewall to keep the students (and other unauthorized parties) out.
:) That was my point. The firewalls on the servers filter both ways, incoming and outgoing between subnets, the other servers, etc. so only authorized traffic can go through. That make sense? hehe.
Not really, at least how I'm reading it.
Why do you need redundant rules on both firewalls that say "block from student-net to fs-net"? Why not simply "block to fs-net tcp syn" (along with blocking other malicious TCP/UDP attacks in general)?
It comes down to a "white-list" vs. "black-list" mentality. Creating a special case on the student-net firewall ("allow all outgoing except to fs-net") reveals "white-list" thinking. Whether in Mandatory Access Control or in Role-Based Access Control, this is a Bad Thing™.
Why do you need redundant rules on both firewalls that say "block from student-net to fs-net"? Why not simply "block to fs-net tcp syn" (along with blocking other malicious TCP/UDP attacks in general)?
It comes down to a "white-list" vs. "black-list" mentality. Creating a special case on the student-net firewall ("allow all outgoing except to fs-net") reveals "white-list" thinking. Whether in Mandatory Access Control or in Role-Based Access Control, this is a Bad Thing™.
I believe my boss goes by the rule of block everything then open up the ports and access that are appropriate incoming/outgoing/between subnets/etc.
At least I know that's how the wireless is setup. I think he has the rest of the network setup the same way.
I really need to get a good diagram of our network and how the firewall is configured on the various servers and such.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
ahahahahaha Tell that to my boss at the college.....