I am a hardcore UNIX fan and a hardcore NT bigot. With
that out of the way let me say that whoever told you
UNIX is secure and NT is not is way off base. What
they should have said is that the source code to UNIX
is open and the masses are more proactive in finding
the holes and sending out certs, while Microsoft is
very stingy with knowledge of their source code and
modifying it can be a nightmare if it is not in the
form of an official MS service pack, patch, or
hot-fix. The bottom line is this, there is no such
thing as a secure OS, but UNIX makes the process of
becoming secure easier. With regard to NT I would
advise finding every resource you can on the subject
of "hardeing Windows NT" and compile a standard of
implementation for NT.
--- Matt Little <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> Hello all,
> 
> We have NT firewalls and expertise here and the
> general opinion is to
> stick with that as it the the OS we have most
> knowledge in.
> 
> However, we have been advised that NT is 'full of
> holes' and UNIX is the
> most secure OS and we do have some knowledge of
> UNIX.
> 
> I'm aware that there are performance advantages of
> running FW-1 on UNIX,
> but that aside, I was wondering if anyone has, or
> could point me to, any
> evidence of running FW-1 on NT as being a serious
> security problem.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Matt Little
> 
> 
> 
>
================================================================================
>      To unsubscribe from this mailing list, please
> see the instructions at
>               
> http://www.checkpoint.com/services/mailing.html
>
================================================================================


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com/


================================================================================
     To unsubscribe from this mailing list, please see the instructions at
               http://www.checkpoint.com/services/mailing.html
================================================================================

Reply via email to