i have a server running 24/7 with win2k3, it runs with an ip firewall (peerguardian), outpost firewall software and of course the router's hardware firewall. it is pretty hardcore
The other PCs in the house also run with firewall software and the likes, taking up valueable system resources (especiall ram-access!). I know by now everyone will be bitching about only a hardware firewall is needed, but just quit it; i know, but don't care.
my question is:
If I uplink the switch to the server, and there by makes it the only internet connection gateway, and share the connection: Will the software/hardware/ip firewall then still intercept, block, smack, purge and kill ANYTHING (as with the normal setup) going through the server by the client computers internet browser.
in other terms: is it just as (or more even) sure/secure?
a decent firewall installed on a computer will block all data trying to access it. ics is no different. imho you are a paranoid fool for having that much crap in your network.
I think all that crap will cause more of a headache for you than any good for your network. If anyone REALLY wanted to get through they probably good enough to get past anything regardless of what you have. If you just want to filter incomming spam like viruses and icmp traffic just a little home router will suffice. You really don't need anything more than that in a home. If you have a buisness going you probably have/should have a firewall appliance like a pix, then you DEFINATLY don't need anything more.
Just having something between you and the internet is good enough as far as internet traffic spam goes.
The ip blocker stops about 5-20 a day, the software firewall blocks about 25.000 (incl. packets to closed ports) a week and the router, well who knows.. I don't get any crap inwards
the question was NOT weither I should have 700 firewalls running at once, but weither the a server-thru connection is reliable in terms of safety, since it isn't the servers webbrowser etc., but the clients that is active most of the time
so.... right now you have all your computers hooked up to a router switch, and you want to hook only the server up to the switch and share the internet connection through the server to the other computers? you will be going through two levels of nat. i dont know how well that will work, ive never tried it. and no one in their right mind would need to. your just making things extremely complicated. the whole point of a router is so you dont need a pc dedicated to sharing the internet connection. im all for experimentation but your not experimenting, if you were you would have just tried it yourself and found the answers yourself. you have no idea what your doing and you have no idea what your asking. your just foaming at the mouth trying to sound smart.
yes, that right Router -> Switch -> PCs, what I want to do is: Router -> Server -> Switch -> PCs
Quote :
im all for experimentation but your not experimenting, if you were you would have just tried it yourself and found the answers yourself. you have no idea what your doing and you have no idea what your asking. your just foaming at the mouth trying to sound smart.
I am not asking if it can be done, as it is a straight foward linkup. I have tried this ages ago, and it works fine, I was asking about the security of it, not about number of firewalls needed or route of navigation, I can't understand how you are not able to see the simplicity and actual intention of my initial post
I've never used outpost, and don't know how peer guardian works internally, but my guess is that the firewalls interact directly with the TCP/IP stack and will work on a shared or routed connection.
You are about to answer a thread that has been inactive for more than 6 months. If you still wish to proceed, please ensure that your posting is original and does not duplicate or overlap any prior responses to this thread.