On 2023-05-02 15:18, Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2023-05-02 23:13, Darryl Gregorash wrote:
On 2023-05-02 12:45, Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2023-05-02 19:06, Darryl Gregorash wrote:
On 2023-05-02 04:13, Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2023-05-02 08:44, Per Jessen wrote:
Carlos E. R. wrote:
It might be easier if you simply listed the reasons for using a firewall on a trusted network. I find the idea intriguing.
I find the idea of not running it intriguing and naive.
If you feel you need a firewall on a trusted network, perhaps you really need a more robust set of rules on your external firewall.
As it is, the current external firewall, which belongs to the ISP (and can not be replaced by one of my own, so don't ask again), claims to firewall but does nothing at all. This became known when they activated IPv6 a week ago for a Beta test.
Now you have me really confused. How is the external firewall in any way relevant to issues relating to internal firewalls?
Because it forced me to upgrade the internal firewalls to cope with new issues.
If you have/learn of security issues with that external firewall, you could simply put your own firewall/router (a separate computer running
Again: I said I can not, and please do not argue. I'm tired of saying this.
OK, I give up. For whatever reason, you are not able to set up your network(s) the way most norm^H^H^H^H people would do it, namely a single point of contact between the ISP's gateway and a single robustly firewalled system acting as an internal gateway for each internal network you need (a DMZ, if you will) -- and a single point of contact between each of your internal networks and the DMZ. However you want to colour it, I'm out of this discussion, so no response is necessary.