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

Re: Linux firewall vs Windows and Hardware based firewalls



On Thu, 2003-07-31 at 01:11, Andre Volmensky wrote:
> Hello all,
> 
> I have to put forward an argument to management regarding setting up a
> firewall on some of our clients networks.
> 
> What are the advantages of a linux firewall over something like Windows
> with WinRoute on it, or even a hardware based firewall. What are the
> disadvantages etc. I know I am asking on a linux users mailing list, but
> I would also like reply's not to be too bias. 

Vs. Windows:
- stability: you can make a Win2k box as stable as a "Unix" box
  only by adding lots more RAM.
- resource usage (a *minimal*, headless "dumpster special" (i.e. free
  as in beer] PC does great as a Linux/{Open|Free}BSD firewall).
  32MB RAM, 1GB HDD and a Pentium 133 are more than adequate for 
  10Mbs (1.25MBps) Ethernet, and a T1 is much slower than that.

Vs. H/w:
- Flexibility: a h/w firewall/router lets you do *only* what is flashed
  onto the FlashRAM, nothing more.  A good general purpose OS (again,
  Linux/{Open|Free}BSD) lets you do more, like traffic analysis/shaping,
  intrusion detection, etc, etc.
- Upgradeability: every time a new kernel or version of userland apps
  come out, you can get bug fixes and new features.
- Security: you have the source, so "you" can verify correctness.
- Security: if the manufacturer of the h/w firewall goes out of 
  business or stops supporting that model, you must buy a new model,
  or face the possibility of unpatched bugs.

-- 
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Ron Johnson, Jr.        Home: ron.l.johnson@cox.net             |
| Jefferson, LA  USA                                              |
|                                                                 |
| "I'm not a vegetarian because I love animals, I'm a vegetarian  |
|  because I hate vegetables!"                                    |
|    unknown                                                      |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+




Reply to: