Re: Is Firewall Client necessary?
From: Phillip Windell (_at_.)
Date: 07/16/04
- Previous message: Sharoon Shetty K [MSFT]: "Re: Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Network Access Quarantine Control and wifi"
- In reply to: Ray: "Re: Is Firewall Client necessary?"
- Next in thread: Thomas W Shinder [MVP]: "Re: Is Firewall Client necessary?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 12:47:22 -0500
"Ray" <reply_in@newsgroup.only> wrote in message
news:e%23BqHuoaEHA.3804@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Hi Tom,
>
> How come "real" firewalls don't require client installations? :-)
Because you are asking about a NAT Device VS a Winsock Proxing Service. They
aren't even the same technology and have nothing to do with something being
(or not being) a "real firewall". A NAT Device, ..which is what the
traditional "real firewalls" are,.. is much *less* sophisticated than a
"proxying service" which has the capability to operate in much higher layers
on the OSI model..
The term "firewall" is only a *slang* term that has taken root in the
industry "lingo". If you study for certification such as the CCNA you will
find that Cisco documentation even uses the term Firewall to decribe a
simple Router because it blocks broadcasts (Broadcast Firewall) and it also
uses the term "firewall" for a Router that has ACLs and doesn't even run NAT
to begin with. So the accurate definition of "firewall" with the politics
and religion removed is simply *any* device that blocks *any* particular
type of traffic based on a *particular* policy.
-- Phillip Windell [MCP, MVP, CCNA] www.wandtv.com
- Previous message: Sharoon Shetty K [MSFT]: "Re: Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Network Access Quarantine Control and wifi"
- In reply to: Ray: "Re: Is Firewall Client necessary?"
- Next in thread: Thomas W Shinder [MVP]: "Re: Is Firewall Client necessary?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
