Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #1127
| From | Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.misc |
| Subject | Re: appliance firewall |
| Date | 2011-05-17 02:05 -0700 |
| Organization | ThadLABS |
| Message-ID | <4DD23A74.6010800@thadlabs.com> (permalink) |
| References | <iqq4ut$tu4$1@dont-email.me> <4DD0AD5E.4040207@thadlabs.com> <iqsqi8$5ej$1@dont-email.me> |
On 5/16/2011 8:37 PM, Todd wrote:
> On 05/15/2011 09:51 PM, Thad Floryan wrote:
>> On 5/15/2011 8:16 PM, Todd wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>
>> SonicWALL is literally a plug'n'play solution that just works.
>
> Hi Thad,
>
> 100's. Hmmm. Exactly the information I was looking for.
> Thank you!
You're welcome! It was someone posting in the ba.internet group
back in the mid-1990s that clued me in to SonicWALL and I've been
installing them for clients until 2008 when I retired.
> [...]
> The frustrating part of all this is that the scan is only of the
> public IP address. It does not see anything, such as a firewall
> on the other side of the router. This is really not about
> security. Its about insurance provider avoiding liability.
> Meaning that I can not put a firewall in between the router and the
> internal network and be guaranteed to always pass their probe test.
> All the customer's facilities use NAT. The probe doesn't even
> know what the internal IP address are.
>
> I can put the el-cheapo modem in bridge mode, but the next el-cheapo
> low-bid-router-of-the-week will be back in regular mode and the
> hassles will start all over. And, who know how long the el-cheapo
> modems will still support bridge mode. Ever have an ISP tech
> show up at a customer's facility and redo your entire configuration?
>
> And if this weeks replacement el-cheapo doesn't pass their test,
> they will void their liability.
What EXACTLY is it they're testing? I have my SonicWALL TZ170 setup
to be in stealth mode -- there is absolutely NO response from the
SonicWALL to anything from the outside.
Another nice aspect of the SonicWALL is no moving parts and no heat
such as would be the case if I cobbled-up a linux-based system using
old hardware. Plug computers are a possibility, but I'm unaware of
any with multiple NICs -- my SheevaPlugs and GuruPlugs have single
GigE ports:
<http://thadlabs.com/PIX/SheevaPlug_labelled.jpg>
<http://thadlabs.com/PIX/SheevaPlug_underside.jpg>
<http://thadlabs.com/PIX/Sheevaplug_Webmin.jpg>
<http://thadlabs.com/PIX/SheevaPlug_GuruPlug.jpg>
In case it wasn't obvious, the SonicWALL appliance is also a router.
I presently have a maxed DOCSIS 2.0 cable connection and here's a
simple diagram of my home office setup:
outdoor cable
________|_________
[ Motorola SB-5101 ]
[____cable modem___]
|
________|_________
[ SonicWall TZ170 ]
[__Firewall/Router_]
LAN | | DMZ
The Cisco router is ______|______ ______|_________
to get-around a LAN [Cisco BEFSR41] [ D-Link DIR-625 ]
license issue with [___Router____] [__(Guest Wifi)__]
the SonicWall due to | | | |
# of devices on LAN | | | |
various switches
for computers, printers,
LANCAMs, LAN WiFi, other
devices (RS-232, USB hub)
FWIW, there's double NATing from my LAN to the outside and it doesn't
seem to affect anything (home banking, Steam games, ssh, sftp, etc.).
Again, I'm really curious what it is they're testing.
Back to comp.os.linux.misc | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
appliance firewall Todd <Todd@invalid.com> - 2011-05-15 20:16 -0700
Re: appliance firewall Keith Keller <kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> - 2011-05-15 20:32 -0700
Re: appliance firewall Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> - 2011-05-15 21:51 -0700
Re: appliance firewall Todd <Todd@invalid.com> - 2011-05-16 20:37 -0700
Re: appliance firewall Todd <Todd@invalid.com> - 2011-05-16 20:39 -0700
Re: appliance firewall Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> - 2011-05-17 02:05 -0700
Re: appliance firewall Todd <Todd@invalid.com> - 2011-05-17 10:39 -0700
Re: appliance firewall The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2011-05-17 19:41 +0100
Re: appliance firewall Todd <Todd@invalid.com> - 2011-05-17 12:23 -0700
Re: appliance firewall Todd <Todd@invalid.com> - 2011-05-17 12:24 -0700
Re: appliance firewall The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2011-05-18 01:13 +0100
Re: appliance firewall Todd <Todd@invalid.com> - 2011-05-18 09:32 -0700
Re: appliance firewall The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2011-05-18 21:18 +0100
Re: appliance firewall Todd <Todd@invalid.com> - 2011-05-19 12:13 -0700
Re: appliance firewall The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2011-05-16 12:53 +0100
Re: appliance firewall technomaNge <cowpaddy@bullshit.net> - 2011-05-16 20:34 -0500
Re: appliance firewall The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2011-05-17 10:55 +0100
Re: appliance firewall Mark <i@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> - 2011-05-17 10:08 +0100
Re: appliance firewall Todd <Todd@invalid.com> - 2011-05-17 10:53 -0700
Re: appliance firewall Mark <i@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> - 2011-05-18 09:17 +0100
Re: appliance firewall Todd <Todd@invalid.com> - 2011-05-18 09:31 -0700
csiph-web