Talk:Firewall (computing)
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Firewall (computing) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 12 months  |
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Morris Worm
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This statement describes this virus/worm as still being a current problem today -- is this accurate?
"This virus known as the Morris Worm was carried by e-mail and is now a common nuisance for even the most innocuous domestic user." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.7.44.13 (talk • contribs) 16:31, September 23, 2006
Consumer Product Definitions of Firewall Types
[edit]I'm a consumer looking at the firewall descriptions of various DSL modems and routers, trying to compare different products and figure out what firewall features are available that I should look for. This Wikipedia article hasn't really clarified the situation for me.
One product says "Advanced security from hacker attacks with Stateful Packet Inspection (SPI) and Network Address Translation (NAT) firewalls".
Are those vague general terms, or exact specifications of firewall techniques that will be the same for any product that claims to do them? Statefully inspecting the packets for what -- the same things in any product that implements this? Is NAT really an active firewall, or just that the nature of a shared IP at the router device has this benefit?
One says "Protects PCs from Ping of Death, SYN Flood, Land Attack, IP Spoofing, and other DoS (Denial of Service) Attacks", another says protects against DoS attacks. Is product A better?
Etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.6.235.68 (talk • contribs) 22:46, September 24, 2006
First to Second Generation Timegap?
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
"The first paper published on firewall technology was in 1988, when..." "From 1980-1990 three colleagues from..." The two beginnings of the paragraphs concerning first and second generation firewalls. So the second generation firewalls was already eight years in development when the first virus attack occured and the first paper on the topic was published?! Anyone got references for this?
Third generation: application layer -- Inaccuracies
[edit]This section would be better titled: Third Generation: NGFW. This is the standard name in the industry today.
Additionally, there's a statement that I believe to be irrelevant to the article.
...Web Application Firewall (WAF). WAF attacks may be implemented in the tool “WAF Fingerprinting utilizing timing side channels” (WAFFle).
The citation (13) references WAFs. WAFs are _not_ the same as network security gateways AKA firewalls. They are a very specific security gateway that protects webservers and focuses on HTTP/HTTPS protections.
This is entirely different from a "regular" firewall. Thus, this portion should be removed. There should really be a separate article dedicated to WAF technology. It is that important and relevant in the industry today.
- Now covered in Web application firewall ~Kvng (talk) 21:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Expand logs
[edit]The logs section includes a number of useful categories of firewall behavior. It would be worth expanding these beyond just logs into fuller descriptions e.g., URL filtering. Tule-hog (talk) 04:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC)