Ken,
Thank you very much for the advice. This past Friday, my company has
decided to use Linux as our company Firewall. Furthermore, we've decided
that this Firewall will be running kernel 2.4.2 with only two services
running on it, SSH and netfilter (aka iptables). I've tested kernel
2.4.2 in the lab and notice it performs better than kernel 2.2.x. I've also
performed various intrusion detection tests on the box using
Cisco NetSonar, Cybercop, ISS, Axent Netrecon but is unable to break
it. The linux box is rock-solid. I am also running portsentry (IDS)
on the Firewall itself.
Also, we decide to running our squid proxy server on another linux box
to provide transparent caching for our internal users. As far as VPN is
concerns, we are going to implement FreeS/WAN on another box. I think
in the long run, it is going to save the company a lot of money. We
end up not buying the PIX and web-caching engine from Cisco. Oh, the
networking guy in our group who recommends Cisco PIX and Cisco web-
caching engine as a solution, he has been fired. Go figure.
Regards,
Sean
P.S. Priscilla, why not implementing TRANSPARENT caching by using squid
to speed up internet connection for your users? Squid is free and very
secure and easy to use.
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Stuart Brockwell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: Performance Comparision between Linux OS Firewall and Cisco
>PIX 525
>Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 20:02:26 -0800
>
>Sean,
>
>Comments imbedded:
>
>On 23 Mar 2001, at 16:12, Stuart Brockwell wrote:
>
> > Hi Sean,
> > I am a Linux head my self, and one of our firewalls is in fact
> > running
> > on a Linux box. The only problem with this type of firewall is that
> > you inherit all of the known bugs that the software has. Given that
> > the source code to Linux is widely available, you have a lot of very
> > talented people out there who know these holes and are able to exploit
> > them very easily.
>
>It also means that there are a lot of talented people who are looking
>at the code to make sure that any holes are patched. In fact, when
>new exploits are found, Linux is usually the fastest platform to have
>a patch available. Compare this to having to wait weeks for vendor
>patches or having to prove to a vendor that a problem exists.
>
>Also, a service can only be exploited if it is running. A properly
>configured firewall doesn't run unecessary services, this makes it
>very difficult to exploit. Essentially, it would come down to trying to
>DoS it or running a password guessing program against it to get
>remote access.
>
>
> If you
> > maintain your own Linux firewall, you will need to continuously look
> > for the latest bug fixes to install on your Linux box to address the
> > latest round of holes that have been released.
>
>If the Linux firewall is properly setup, the only services running on it
>are ipchains and SSH. This means that you have to be aware of 2
>services. While there could always be a local exploit, if only
>trusted admins have access, the trouble with keeping up patches
>is minimal. It is certainly no more trouble than keeping up with
>bugs on a vendor platform.
>
> >
> > Cisco and companies such as Watch Guard closely guard their source
> > code, often you can elect to take on a maintenance contract with the
> > firewall where you recieve all the latest fixes for a 12 month period
> > (this is what we did). As this is their bread and butter, they spend
> > a lot of time looking for holes and fixes to known bugs.
> >
>
>While true, this doesn't mean that their code will have fewer bugs
>or that the bugs will be patched quicker. There is a very large
>support community for Linux that is very technical. Most bugs are
>patched in a matter of days, sometimes hours.
>
>
> > the main plus for each of
> > the commercial packages is that there is large support base, where as
> > skilled Linux admin staff who can lock down a firewall are very few
> > and far between.
>
>This is simply not true. There is a very large community of Linux
>developers and admins, and most of them are very knowledgable.
>There are good mailing lists and _plenty_ of good Linux
>security/firewall books, articles, web sites, etc. available.
>
>Locking down a Linux box is not rocket science. That is FUD that
>is propagated by vendors who want to sell product. It's not hard to
>configure a Linux box to be secure, the difficulty comes in running
>lots of services and providing access to users. If you have a box
>that runs web, ftp, smtp, nfs, etc., then it becomes much harder to
>secure, but none of these services should be running on a firewall.
>
>The bottom line is that there are several good commercial firewalls,
>but that doesn't mean that a Linux box cannot serve as a good, low-
>end alternative. Especially if cost is one of the main decision
>factors.
>
>-Kent
>
>
>
>
>_________________________________
>FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
>http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
>Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
