On Monday 09 August 2004 5:48 pm, Mike O wrote:
> John,
>
> Would you mind elaborating on your comment about Netfilter's stateful
> engine being weaker than Checkpoint's? and how would the window tracking
> patch make it more secure. We have checkpoint here and have ran into
> problems, where checkpoint has limited us in the way we do things here and
> I have always wanted to implement netfilter but couldn't because it's open
> source.
Why couldn't you implement netfilter "because it's open source"?
Do you know someone who has a plausible argument saying that open source
software is lower quality or less secure than commercial closed-source
software (or is someone simply living under the illusion that if something
goes wrong with their FW-1 firewall, they can sue Check Point, haha) ?
I'm very interested in any meaningful rationale for saying "we won't use it
because it's open source". I could understand if the argument was "we won't
use it because it doesn't meet our needs", but that's a different argument.
Regards,
Antony.
--
"Linux is going to be part of the future. It's going to be like Unix was."
- Peter Moore, Asia-Pacific general manager, Microsoft
Please reply to the list;
please don't CC me.
