Re: Svr-03 and DMZ
- From: RIQUADENT <RIQUADENT@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 09:50:21 +0100
Bill Grant a utilisé son clavier pour écrire :
A DMZ is behind a firewall. The real difference is what is between the DMZ and the private LAN. If you use the back-to-back firewall model there is an additional firewall between the DMZ and the private LAN.
The best candidates for a DMZ are servers which need to be accessed routinely from the Internet but only occasionally or never from the LAN. Some people like to put things like Exchange or remote access servers in a DMZ but I don't like the idea. It means that you have to open up the inner firewall to allow client machines acccess to the servers in the DMZ.
"BrianMultiLanguage" <BrianMultiLanguage@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:10EBFA78-700A-43F9-8C3B-0C28DC514887@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxWhat is a very good reason to put a server, such as a RRAS or any server, on
a DMZ instead of behind a firewall?
Thanks for the input.
For example, some Exchange versions can be configured as a front-end server (to be puted in DMZ) and back-end server (To be puten in the LAN)
So the frond-end server act as a proxy applications to secure WEB Access
RIQUADENT
.
- References:
- Re: Svr-03 and DMZ
- From: Bill Grant
- Re: Svr-03 and DMZ
- Prev by Date: Re: WINS problem Help!!!
- Next by Date: Re: DCpromo issue
- Previous by thread: Re: Svr-03 and DMZ
- Next by thread: W2K3 Dual Nic and 2 ISPs
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|