At 23:37 26/12/98 -0400, Brian Steele wrote:
>>How is this relevent?
>
>Let me try again - how about this quote from LAN Times' Aug 98 test on
>NT Firewalls: "Contrary to commonly held opinions, Windows NT is now
>(at last) a reasonably secure computing platform, and installing and
>configuring a firewall on NT is often more simple than on its Unix
>brethren. Unix firewalls, BECAUSE OF THE OS'S OPEN ARCHITECTURE AND
>LONG LEGACY OF SECURITY HOLES (my caps), are not really any more
>secure, either. "
>
>http://www.lantimes.com/testing/98compare/pcfirewa.html
You should read message AT LEAST (my caps) twice before answering. Man was
absolutelly right, that was not relevant AT ALL (my caps again).
Sorry, but you seem to have 0 hours experience with operating systems other
than Windows. This reminds me of Amiga 'phase' in my life, where people
(including me) used to scream "Amiga is the best OS! Unbeatable, etc,
etc..." - without having real experience with other OSes. Amiga was perfect
for my needs, and nobody could convince me that XYZ OS is better. And we
were reading all those magazines that told us "Amiga rulez!". They wouldn't
lie, right?
The comments you quote (from article) are COMPLETE crap. Easy to install &
configure (point & click) is the most crappy argument I have ever heard in
fw 'discussions'! If you don't know what you're doing, clicking won't help
you at all (but might help you if you DON'T know what you're doing - and
that doesn't make anyone competent enough to judge!).
>"BECAUSE OF THE OS'S OPEN ARCHITECTURE AND LONG LEGACY OF SECURITY HOLES"
Crap, crap, crap!
Application vulnerability is not OS vulnerability. Strip down UNIX and tell
me more about those security holes. And then "strip down" (hmmm...
uninstall games for example?) NT. And tell me more...
Vanja
-
[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
