On Fri, 2006-05-26 at 17:11 +0400, ArkanoiD wrote:
> nuqneH,
> On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 08:24:17PM -0400, Marcus J. Ranum wrote:
> > My guess is that that VCs would split a rib laughing if someone came
> > to them with a business plan for a new firewall company.

> Damn sure. And maybe that's why we have nothing like "Gauntlet on steroids"
> (flexible, expandable and supported with development team who is willing
> to help to integrate it with any customer application) these days, though
> there definitely *is* some niche market demand for it.
> We are lucky XML firewalls became reality, thanks to people who made those.
> There is *NO* firewall with reasonable IMAP proxy implementation! No one at
> all!
> And when i try to tell someone i am firewall developer, they usually think
> it is another stupid linux-based packet filter hacked together with bunch
> of freeware tools hiding its incredible uglyness behind the web interface.
> Even before i tell a word. Just because everyone does that and main competition
> is to make it cheaper.

Yes, this is a bit frustrating. One has to call a firewall something
different because otherwise he won't be taken seriously, and the product
is immediately dismissed.

And yes, there is at least one firewall which has an IMAP proxy
implementation (+ 18 other protocols + SSH + SSL), but I don't want to
name it as I am biased


firewall-wizards mailing list