[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: FCT - Firewall Configuration Tool



Hi firewaller's,

"Ivan E. Moore II" schrieb:

> I have been taking a look at the FCT...it's interesting
> I have only a few issues with it.  Overall it's well done.

Thanks :-)

> The issues I have with it are these:
> 1>  It's still cryptic.  Not everyone is going to want to deal
> with having to know what ipchains is and all that...

If someone want's to build a firewall, he really should ;-)

>  The interface needs to be more user friendly.

???

> (But from a technical standpoint
> I like it)

Me too :-)

> 2>  This is a generic front end.  It's designed for multiple
> types of systems.  (not just linux and not just ipchains)  This
> leads to inconsistancy and the possibility of other problems.

At the moment, the only inconsistancy is IP-Masqu. with Darren's IP-Filter,
though IPFilter supports IP-Masquerading. But at the moment i don't see
the need to support this with IP-Filter.

> 3>  It doesn't seem to be up to par with the 2.2.x kernel yet.

Version 1.1.1 runs under Linux 2.2 (SuSE 6.0), just released with
small bugfixes. The bug-devil introduced a false "-M" option in V1.1.0,
don't ask me why, i really don't know ;)

> I think it does have some good ideas and definatly is well done.  I'd
> like to see both a more straight forth front end

how could/should this be done ?

> (for those who know what they are doing) and also a more idiot proof type of
> front
> end (for those who are not linux swavy)
>
> Also, another thing is that it still does not solve the issue of
> having a shell based configuration program.  (tho this can be used
> vial lynx! ).

i configure fct with vi :-)

> Just a few tid bits.
>
> oh yea..for those of you who missed the posting on this to begin
> with, the url for this site is:
>
> http://www.fen.baynet.de/~ft114/FCT.htm
>
> Ivan

Yeah, and please sign my guestbook...

--
MfG
    Jens Hellmerich-Friedrich

http://www.fen.baynet.de/jens.hellmerichs-friedrich




Reply to: