On Mon, May 20, 2002 at 07:49:49PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote: > > > It's also correct, from a certain point of view. </obi-wan> There is a > > > school of thought that firewalls are only useful if you are trying to > > > protect network services that you can't secure properly. > > Which is quite accurate. We can't secure our services properly. If we > > could, we would have, and we wouldn't be wasting time worrying about > > making sure we can do security updates in a timely manner. > Again, if you have no faith at all in the security of your service, the > only useful firewall rule is "DENY" from "ALL", which is equivalent to > "don't listen". No, that's not the case. If I have faith in the reliability of the service in normal use, but none in its security, I ensure that it's only accessible by *people* I have faith in. I can do that with firewalling tools. > For that matter, why are you complaining about the lack > of a firewall in hurd while our default install has network services > without even the firewall that you use as a security blanket? Because I'm not talking about defaults. Nor am I talking about things that everyone will be compelled to use. I'm talking about features that *must* be made available for me to be able to look someone in the eye and say "Yes, Debian GNU/Hurd 3.1 is ready for your use." (That's the same principle that's ensuring you're getting mozilla, rsync and apache in Debian GNU/Linux...) > (Another argument, but one I'd really like to win by woody+1.) I think you've already won that one without the proviso, although some of the implementation's still on one of my copious todo lists... > > > More importantly, for this school of thought, is the fact > > > that firewalls offer a false sense of security. > > Actually, they offer a much *stronger* sense of security. It's easier > > to say "Don't allow any traffic from this device to port 80" with a > > system-wide firewalling tool and be confident that nothing's going to > > get in, than to do the same thing from the application. > How do you feel more confident that the firewall won't break than that a > web server won't magically install itself? I may've already installed a webserver that I'm happily accessing from another interface. > At any rate, the point isn't that I won't allow the use of firewalls, > but that they aren't an essential element of all security models. tb > overstated his point, but it shouldn't be dismissed. I've no idea why you're overstating my point like that. A firewall is a necessary feature of a modern operating system. If users choose not to make use of that feature, that's their decision, and good luck to them. I'm not sure I have an opinion on whether default firewalling rules would be a help or a hindrance. Anyway. The Hurd needs some basic firewalling tools. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``BAM! Science triumphs again!'' -- http://www.angryflower.com/vegeta.gif
Attachment:
pgpuvSywABkVH.pgp
Description: PGP signature