[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] RE: [FW1] Multi-tier Firewall topology
Title: RE: [FW1] Multi-tier Firewall topology Of course it would make it at least a little harder for an attacker to get in under some circumstances...., as you will be adding a level of ambiguity and something that doesn't appear to be the norm, which can be good in many cases. But you need to weigh your opportunity costs of doing this. Is it worth the cash? Is it worth the additional management headaches? (patches, management consoles, staff with the proper expertise, support contract management and costs, etc.) It all depends exactly how valuable the thing is you are trying to protect, how hard you want to make your life :), how much money you have, etc... Sounds like a lot of fun though, let me know if you come across anything interesting in your research on this. Jarrett -----Original Message-----
Sure, I oversimplified the diagram to the point that the point was lost.... Here is a clearer picture: Internet----FW1----CiscoPIX-----DMZ-----FW1---CiscoPIX---InternalLan Clearly, the DMZ and Internal LAN could hang off two interfaces of the first CiscoPIX, and we would have the same topology essentially, eliminating the second set of firewalls. The topology as shown is for clarity as my email only allows proportional text so I can only do one line diagrams effectively (!). And the choice and sequence of vendors above is just what came to mind, not a proposal. But I am trying to establish whether back to back firewalls from different vendors really makes any sense (all other things being equal such as the DMZ hosts being secure in themselves). Everything is exploitable of course, and the question is really whether the first firewall could be exploited in such a way that would make having the second fw a sensible precaution. So we aren't talking DDoS, but an exploit where the policy is compromised, or something along those lines. This could happen of course. But is it realistic? Has anyone had any example or indication of such an incidence? From the responses I have so far, it would appear that back to back firewalls aren't often employed, and I would like to hear viewpoints from both camps if possible. Many thanks, Paul. >>> Chris Arnold <[email protected]> 5/3/2001 07:32:40 pm >>>
Chris -----Original Message-----
I am still in two minds about having a two levels of firewall protection
Internet----FW1----CiscoPIX---InternalNet Has anyone had any experience where this kind of configuration has proved an
Many thanks Paul Murphy ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
============================================================================
================================================================================
|