i thought a firewall WAS a content filter?
i don't understand please elucidate
On Wed, 6 Jun 2001, David Ishmael wrote:
> Yeah, I've heard the same thing. From my understanding, the best solution
> is to have a firewall AND a content filtering tool. You should never use a
> content filter as a means of firewalling a network. From what I've read,
> doing a firewall/filter solution is secure (if there is such a thing). ;)
>
> David Ishmael, CCNA, IVCP
> Senior Network Management Engineer
> Windward Consulting Group, Inc.
> Phone: (703) 283-7564
> Pager: (888) 910-7094
> eFax: (425) 969-4707
> Fax: (703) 351-9428
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ron DuFresne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 4:26 PM
> To: David Ishmael
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Content Filtering
>
>
>
> Perhaps I've mised updates and such, but, I was of the understanding that
> all these sweet little content filters for the web were susecptable to url
> obfuscations that allowed one to bypass them.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ron DuFresne
>
>
> On Wed, 6 Jun 2001, David Ishmael wrote:
>
> > Richard,
> >
> > Are you looking for a stand-alone application or a combination of
> > firewall/content filter? We ran a PIX firewall for a firewall and used (I
> > think it was called) WebTrends. The speed was in how it worked. The
> > firewall would get a packet destined for bad-site.com and would send the
> > packet on as well as a packet to WebTrends asking for the acceptance
> policy.
> > By the time the response came back from bad-site.com it had already gotten
> a
> > response from WebTrends to either permit or deny responses from that site.
> > If it was allowed the response passed through the firewall, if not the
> user
> > was sent a custom URL that said that the site was restricted. Highly
> > configurable and fast...
> >
> > I'm sure there are ton's of good stand-alone solutions out there...good
> > luck! ;)
> > David Ishmael, CCNA, IVCP
> > Senior Network Management Engineer
> > Windward Consulting Group, Inc.
> > Phone: (703) 283-7564
> > Pager: (888) 910-7094
> > eFax: (425) 969-4707
> > Fax: (703) 351-9428
> > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Richard Ginski
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 2:11 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Content Filtering
> >
> >
> > Hello Everyone,
> >
> > Sorry in advance for being slightly off topic.
> > We are an organization of approximately 4000 users. I have been asked to
> > find a technology which can prevent users from browsing bad sites. I am
> > somewhat familiar with content filtering products. However, my biggest
> fear
> > is latency. Can anyone recommend who I should check out regarding content
> > filtering products?
> >
> > PS: If it also prevented the execution of harmful (only harmful) JAVA
> > based and Active X based code..it would be a plus.
> >
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> "Cutting the space budget really restores my faith in humanity. It
> eliminates dreams, goals, and ideals and lets us get straight to the
> business of hate, debauchery, and self-annihilation." -- Johnny Hart
> ***testing, only testing, and damn good at it too!***
>
> OK, so you're a Ph.D. Just don't touch anything.
>
> -
> [To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
> "unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have faith." - John 20:29
-
[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
