Firewall Wizards mailing list archives
Re: Pix rulebase/policy analysis
From: James <jimbob.coffey () gmail com>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 10:40:44 +1000
On 9/23/07, Richard Golodner <rgolodner () infratection com> wrote:
My suggestions were based on the fact that he describes himself as new to the Pix. You make very good points regarding the text editor, but I have never had a problem using one.
That's the problem, you never have a problem until you have one ;-)
Version drift is also a concern, but hopefully there is only one person actually making the changes to the device and maintaining the documentation. Even at some of the larger SPs I have worked at there was one person devoted to this task.
Wow one person !!!! . A point of failure not too mention a security risk (unless all changes are audited by another party). It must be a low change environment which is great if you can get it but i would still worry about the getting hit by a bus scenario.
Obviously you are a much younger person than me as you demonstrate insight into current technologies that an old man like me is just too lazy to incorporate. LOL!
I think it is the other way around. I am too lazy to maintain multiple sets of doco when the devices can do it themselves. It's a bit like coding, use variables and function names that have real meaning and you can halve your code comments. -- jac _______________________________________________ firewall-wizards mailing list firewall-wizards () listserv icsalabs com https://listserv.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards
Current thread:
- Pix rulebase/policy analysis jacob c (Sep 20)
- Re: Pix rulebase/policy analysis Brian Loe (Sep 21)
- Re: Pix rulebase/policy analysis Michael Cox (Sep 21)
- Re: Pix rulebase/policy analysis Richard Golodner (Sep 21)
- Re: Pix rulebase/policy analysis James (Sep 22)
- Re: Pix rulebase/policy analysis Richard Golodner (Sep 23)
- Re: Pix rulebase/policy analysis James (Sep 25)
- Re: Pix rulebase/policy analysis James (Sep 22)