"Marcus J. Ranum" wrote:
>
> George Capehart wrote:
> >Some light reading for the weekend . . . Thought it'd stir the pot a
> >bit more for the "Firewalls that generate new packets . . ." thread. ;>
> >
> >http://www.darkreading.com/document....f_src=drweekly

>

[snip]
> "Next Generation firewalls"? Gosh, oh, golly - it sounds like what
> they're calling "Next Generation firewalls" are kinda sorta like
> "what firewalls were supposed to do all along."

[snip]

Everything that's old is new again?

Hasn't this been on the horizon a couple years or so, now? ISTR
starting to hear about application proxies again a couple years ago or
so. I recall laughing, at the time, about how it seemed "security
experts" and admins were going to re-discover something that's been
around for, well, quite a long time.

How sad.

Not to haul this thread off-subject or off-topic, but, ironically:
Coincident with this discussion, here, there is running on another
mailing list to which I'm subscribed a discussion about the email spam
and email-borne malware problem and somebody suggested (paraphrased)
"Maybe if some of the relevant RFC's "should"s and "should not"s were
be turned into "must"s and "must not"s?" Such as "HELO/EHLO MUST
consist of." The other idea floated was that Postel's Robustness
Principle is archaic.

Jim
--
Note: My mail server employs *very* aggressive anti-spam
filtering. If you reply to this email and your email is
rejected, please accept my apologies and let me know via my
web form at .



Jim
--
Note: My mail server employs *very* aggressive anti-spam
filtering. If you reply to this email and your email is
rejected, please accept my apologies and let me know via my
web form at .
_______________________________________________
firewall-wizards mailing list
firewall-wizards@listserv.icsalabs.com
https://listserv.icsalabs.com/mailma...rewall-wizards