Revision as of 15:31, 12 June 2019 edit101.175.11.227 (talk) packet filters are not firewalls← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:32, 12 June 2019 edit undoSineBot (talk | contribs)Bots2,555,318 editsm Signing comment by 101.175.11.227 - "packet filters are not firewalls"Next edit → | ||
Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
So Jeffrey Mogul wrote a paper on packet filters which are used to demultiplex packets in the kernel and send them to subscribed userspace processes. He then wrote another paper a year later that talks about access control on datagrams which uses some packet-filter technology but explicitly doesn't call it a packet filter whatsoever. | So Jeffrey Mogul wrote a paper on packet filters which are used to demultiplex packets in the kernel and send them to subscribed userspace processes. He then wrote another paper a year later that talks about access control on datagrams which uses some packet-filter technology but explicitly doesn't call it a packet filter whatsoever. | ||
Packet filters are for filter/delivering packets to user space, not for access control. I think you can state "firewalls are erroneously called packet filters" but they simply aren't firewalls and Jeffrey Mogul who coined the term never really used it in the discussion of access control on datagrams or firewalls except to say that it shared some technology features. | Packet filters are for filter/delivering packets to user space, not for access control. I think you can state "firewalls are erroneously called packet filters" but they simply aren't firewalls and Jeffrey Mogul who coined the term never really used it in the discussion of access control on datagrams or firewalls except to say that it shared some technology features. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:31, 12 June 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | ||
==Another old comment== | ==Another old comment== |
Revision as of 15:32, 12 June 2019
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Firewall (computing) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 12 months |
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Archives |
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Packet filters are not firewalls
So Jeffrey Mogul wrote a paper on packet filters which are used to demultiplex packets in the kernel and send them to subscribed userspace processes. He then wrote another paper a year later that talks about access control on datagrams which uses some packet-filter technology but explicitly doesn't call it a packet filter whatsoever.
Packet filters are for filter/delivering packets to user space, not for access control. I think you can state "firewalls are erroneously called packet filters" but they simply aren't firewalls and Jeffrey Mogul who coined the term never really used it in the discussion of access control on datagrams or firewalls except to say that it shared some technology features. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.175.11.227 (talk) 15:31, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Another old comment
After you install a firewall, you should perform a Firewall Test to make sure your configuration is correct.
Application-layer firewall
The Article Application_layer_firewall should benefit from all the info given here. or maybe merged completely/made into a redirect. --Deelkar (talk) 22:58, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I agree. Merging a bunch of tightly-related short article to one decent one could make a decent feature. Do we need to propose a vote somehow? I'd merge into this article both Application layer firewall and Network layer firewall. I'd even consider adding Personal firewall (without the vendor list), Demilitarized zone (computing), the proposed XML Firewall, and anything useful from Bastion Host. --ScottDavis 11:19, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This is more like a How-To
It feels much more like a HOWTO page rather than an encyclopeda article
rb
Can someone find a link to a rendered animation about the workings of a firewall. From memory it's about 100Mb in size and shows the journey of packets into and through a firewall . Very educational. Sure is! Great work 'Warriors of the Net' ! thank you. I just can't remember where I saw it and I've searched with clusty and google images. Much appreciated for finding the link if someone could. Fret no more; go get it from here: Warriors of the Net —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.161.192 (talk • contribs) 03:46, August 20, 2006
Morris Worm
This statement describes this virus/worm as still being a current problem today -- is this accurate?
"This virus known as the Morris Worm was carried by e-mail and is now a common nuisance for even the most innocuous domestic user." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.7.44.13 (talk • contribs) 16:31, September 23, 2006
Consumer Product Definitions of Firewall Types
I'm a consumer looking at the firewall descriptions of various DSL modems and routers, trying to compare different products and figure out what firewall features are available that I should look for. This Misplaced Pages article hasn't really clarified the situation for me.
One product says "Advanced security from hacker attacks with Stateful Packet Inspection (SPI) and Network Address Translation (NAT) firewalls".
Are those vague general terms, or exact specifications of firewall techniques that will be the same for any product that claims to do them? Statefully inspecting the packets for what -- the same things in any product that implements this? Is NAT really an active firewall, or just that the nature of a shared IP at the router device has this benefit?
One says "Protects PCs from Ping of Death, SYN Flood, Land Attack, IP Spoofing, and other DoS (Denial of Service) Attacks", another says protects against DoS attacks. Is product A better?
Etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.6.235.68 (talk • contribs) 22:46, September 24, 2006
First to Second Generation Timegap?
"The first paper published on firewall technology was in 1988, when..." "From 1980-1990 three colleagues from..." The two beginnings of the paragraphs concerning first and second generation firewalls. So the second generation firewalls was already eight years in development when the first virus attack occured and the first paper on the topic was published?! Anyone got references for this?
Third generation: application layer -- Inaccuracies
This section would be better titled: Third Generation: NGFW. This is the standard name in the industry today.
Additionally, there's a statement that I believe to be irrelevant to the article.
...Web Application Firewall (WAF). WAF attacks may be implemented in the tool “WAF Fingerprinting utilizing timing side channels” (WAFFle).
The citation (13) references WAFs. WAFs are _not_ the same as network security gateways AKA firewalls. They are a very specific security gateway that protects webservers and focuses on HTTP/HTTPS protections.
This is entirely different from a "regular" firewall. Thus, this portion should be removed. There should really be a separate article dedicated to WAF technology. It is that important and relevant in the industry today.
fortnite is the best game of all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! fortnite is the best fortnite fortnite fortnite-fortnite multiplayer game is the best. i play on a xbox one s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.170.183.2 (talk) 19:41, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
fortnite
fortnite is the best game of all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! fortnite is the best fortnite fortnite fortnite-fortnite multiplayer game is the best. i play on a xbox one s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.170.183.2 (talk) 19:44, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
fortnite
fortnite is the best game of all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! fortnite is the best fortnite fortnite fortnite-fortnite multiplayer game is the best. i play on a xbox one s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.170.183.2 (talk) 19:53, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Categories:- All unassessed articles
- C-Class Computing articles
- High-importance Computing articles
- C-Class Computer networking articles
- High-importance Computer networking articles
- C-Class Computer networking articles of High-importance
- All Computer networking articles
- All Computing articles
- C-Class Computer Security articles
- Top-importance Computer Security articles
- C-Class Computer Security articles of Top-importance
- All Computer Security articles
- C-Class software articles
- Unknown-importance software articles
- C-Class software articles of Unknown-importance
- Unknown-importance Computing articles
- All Software articles
- C-Class electronic articles
- Unknown-importance electronic articles
- WikiProject Electronics articles
- C-Class Internet articles
- Unknown-importance Internet articles
- WikiProject Internet articles