On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 09:28:36AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote: > On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 03:18:45PM +0200, Peter Mathiasson wrote: > > On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 02:54:00PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote: > > > No, at least my philosophy is "you do something the right way or you > > > don't do it at all". But we already have ripped the Linux TCP/IP stack > > > > For some reason, you also seem to believe that _everyone_ should think > > that your solution is the right way. > > So, it's your way or no way. > > No, that's the other side of the argument. The "no host-based firewall" > side still allows external firewalls, disconnected operation, security I was talking about Jeroens philosophy actually and it was kind of off-topic. I haven't really payed much attention to this host-based firewall discussion. Ohh, and btw, host-based firewalling is a good thing. I wouldn't walk around with my laptop to all unknown locations running a development (as in unstable) system w/o it. Deny all new incoming (except on open ports) / accept all outgoing. -- Peter Mathiasson, peter at mathiasson dot nu, http://www.mathiasson.nu GPG Fingerprint: A9A7 F8F6 9821 F415 B066 77F1 7FF5 C2E6 7BF2 F228
Attachment:
pgplPoxBC4j2z.pgp
Description: PGP signature