Subject: RE: FWTK To Hard to Compile if your not a Programmer!!

From: Barganski Peter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 12:31:56 +1000

[To be removed from this list send the message "unsubscribe fwtk-users" in the
BODY of a mail message to [email-masked].]

Thanks for the tip Rick.

Firewalling is not new to me though and nor is UNIX administration, however,
compiling code and Makfile configs, is. I beleive It shouldn't be so time
consuming to do all of this. I'm a Systems Administrator not a Programming
Guru. As a Sys Admin, I'm a serious user of all sorts of systems.

Currently we're using Check Point Firewall-1 and we wanted to evaluated what
the Open Source community has to offer in this area.

If its too hard just to install it, it will never get as wide a distribution
as it might deserve.
Anyway, that's just my optnion!
Regards,

Peter Barganski 
Systems Engineer/Consultant 
Nuance Global Traders Australia 

-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Murphy [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, 17 April 2000 12:10
To: Barganski Peter; [email-masked]'
Subject: Re: FWTK To Hard to Compile if your not a Programmer!!

At 10:09 AM 4/17/00 +1000, Barganski Peter wrote:
>Makefile: 16: *** missing separator. Stop.
>
>Does anyone know what this means?

You probably ran fixmake; that probably means you either didn't read the 
README, or you don't know that Linux is not BSD.  Use 'fixmake unfix' to 
undo the damage.

Yes, FWTK requires a knowledgeable UNIX system administrator to install 
(see the README) because by itself it's not enough to be a complete 
firewall. You can too easily misconfigure things if you don't understand 
what protections FWTK provides and what you're expected to provide.
         -Rick

---

From: "Tom Krotchko" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 09:01:49 -0400

>Guru. As a Sys Admin, I'm a serious user of all sorts of systems.

One option is to return it and get your money back <G>.

But seriously, the price of admission with FWTK is doing the research.  You
don't
use FWTK because its "free"; you use it because you get the source code.

Finally, FWTK is not "open source" in the GNU sense.  It has a very
restrictive
license.

---

From: Joseph S D Yao <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 11:36:06 -0400

On Mon, Apr 17, 2000 at 12:31:56PM +1000, Barganski Peter wrote:
...
> the Open Source community has to offer in this area.

Then go to <URL: http://www.freshmeat.net/> and look for more recent
"firewall" code there.

Just be aware that not everything labelled a "firewall" is.  FWTK is
one of the first.  There is something recent called T.REX, but I haven't
had time to evaluate it yet - Rick has, and if I understood correctly
thinks that it is about equivalent to an earlier version of FWTK.  [I
know I have oversimplified, Rick.]

Be wary of things labeled firewall that are mere packet filters.  They
have their place, but you have to evaluate your security need.  Then
again, you're using Firewall-1, so you may be willing to accept those.

-- 
Joe Yao				[email-masked] - Joseph S. D. Yao
COSPO/OSIS Computer Support					EMT-B
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This message is not an official statement of COSPO policies.

---

From: Rick Murphy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 18:22:51 -0400

>know I have oversimplified, Rick.]
T.Rex uses smap/smapd, ftp-gw, and tn-gw from Firewall Toolkit 1.3 or so. 
They've been mildly hacked to change the way they're managed. It also uses 
squid as an http proxy.
         -Rick

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 14:46:26 +0400

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

nuqneH,

Oh. Really. What does NAI think about it?

> They've been mildly hacked to change the way they're managed. It also uses 

                                     _     _  _  _  _      _  _
 {::} {::} {::}  CU in Hell          _| o |_ | | _|| |   / _||_|   |_ |_ |_
 (##) (##) (##)        /Arkan#iD    |_  o  _||_| _||_| /   _|  | o |_||_||_|
 [||] [||] [||]            Do i believe in Bible? Hell,man,i've seen one!

---

From: Martin Machacek <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 16:19:24 +0200 (MET DST)

> Oh. Really. What does NAI think about it?

Their lawyers are about to "have a word" with them (Freemont Avenue Software)
about it. Peter Churchyard from NAI told me this in private mail.

        Martin 

---
[PGP KeyID F3F409C4]

---

From: Blair Lowe <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 13:56:54 -0600

Hi all,

We have a nosource rpm that could make life easier for people. We are
not sure about legal ramifications, though. The rpm contains no fwtk
source, only the patches at ark's site, and my own patches to make
stuff compile, so we suppose that it would not violate any part of
the agreement.

This is currently a private internal rpm that has not been
distributed anywhere. We are an open-source/gnu type shop, and would
love to share our stuff, though. The current rpm is only for x86
redhat 6.1, so we believe that others could streamline if for other
LINUX distributions, architectures, and even other proprietary
operating systems that can use rpm.

If anyone who is in contact with NAI could ask them to contact us to 
authorise us to release my code, we could proceed, and make newbie's 
lives easier.
Otherwise, we shall keep our code to ourselves. We'd love to avoid
any legal stuff: it is in that spirit that we are sending this email.

Thanks,
Blair.

>about it. Peter Churchyard from NAI told me this in private mail.

- ---
[PGP KeyID F3F409C4]

Computer Engineering Inc. http://www.compeng.net
Phone: 780 499 5687 (9 - 5 MST) Fax:   780 435 0693 (24 Hours)
All email advice that is provided for free is without warrantee: use 
at your own risk.