Thoughts on how I could improve my network security?
-
Ok, here is another example of what I am trying to express here:
At work, I have a bunch of Dell PowerConnect switches - 5500 and N3000 series. These are referred to and sold as switches. However, they provide multi-layer functions, beyond just L2 switching. Some of the functions they provide are: switching, routing, DHCP server. Does that mean I can refer to this switch as a router instead of a switch? How about if I start calling the switch a server? I wouldn't, because it's not correct. If I said that a switch and router are the same thing, people would be quick to correct me because they are not the same thing.
-
@dave247 said in Thoughts on how I could improve my network security?:
@scottalanmiller said in Thoughts on how I could improve my network security?:
@dave247 said in Thoughts on how I could improve my network security?:
@scottalanmiller said in Thoughts on how I could improve my network security?:
@dave247 said in Thoughts on how I could improve my network security?:
@scottalanmiller said in Thoughts on how I could improve my network security?:
@dave247 said in Thoughts on how I could improve my network security?:
Second, a router is always a firewall, the two are always the same thing, have been for decades.
I still can't believe you said this... really makes it clear that you aren't playing with a full deck of cards.
If you think that they are different, explain how. Or show an example of some at least. Instead of saying I'm crazy, explain what you mean as you aren't presenting information, just claiming that basic industry common knowledge is wrong. If the whole industry is wrong, what do you know that we don't? Attacking the person, and not the argument, is the greatest sign of agreement - just tends to indicate that you know it is true but dislike that that is the truth.
Well based on what you originally said, you were claiming a firewall and a router were the "same thing". You literally said that. They aren't the same thing because they are two different systems that do two different things. Routers route packets between different networks and firewalls allow or deny traffic based on specified rules. Pretty simple and I'm sure you already actually know that.
My point is that while they might always go together in the same piece of equipment, they really aren't the "same thing". You're going to confuse people by telling them they are the same thing and I think that's secretly your intent.
Here is the original quote you are referring to: "Second, a router is always a firewall, the two are always the same thing, have been for decades. The idea that you even CAN separate the router and firewall is silly, while it's possible no separate devices have been on the market since the late 1990s."
This looks nothing like what you claim that I said. In the original quote I was extremely clear in explaining exactly what you claim I was trying to make confusing. I point out even that you CAN separate them, but no one has done so. And that they've been the same thing [devices] for a long time, but not always.
How am I confusing someone like this? And with this level of explanation, how can you honestly claim that you think I'm trying to mislead someone when I took the time to make it so obvious that they were separate, but always combined?
Look. Really all I'm trying to say is that you should have maybe phrased it as "a router and a firewall always go together", because saying they are the same thing is a very gross over-simplification. It would be like saying the engine in a car is the same thing as the transmission. They always go together, but they are not the same thing. You said they were the same thing, I am saying they are not. I am saying they are not the same thing, because that is the correct thing to say to somebody who says they are the same thing. You can dance around it all you want with your paragraphs of words, but the fact of the matter is you were incorrect, at least in how you described it, and you should just accept that.
But I didn't say that. I said that they are always together and made it clear that they were separate, but always together. I wasn't incorrect, I was completely correct.
Calling two sentances a "paragraph of words" and describing facts as "dancing around" doesn't change the fact that I said one thing, and you claimed another. Call it what you will, but what I said was correct, factual, useful, and anything but misleading as you try to portray it. It was correct, useful, and helpful to someone who would be unclear as to the meaning.
-
@dave247 said in Thoughts on how I could improve my network security?:
Ok, here is another example of what I am trying to express here:
At work, I have a bunch of Dell PowerConnect switches - 5500 and N3000 series. These are referred to and sold as switches. However, they provide multi-layer functions, beyond just L2 switching. Some of the functions they provide are: switching, routing, DHCP server. Does that mean I can refer to this switch as a router instead of a switch?
Of course you can call it a router. An L3 Switch is just a marketing term for a multi-port router. That's what they used to be called, L3 switch is okay but not the original term. They are absolutely routers, and firewalls as well.
-
@dave247 said in Thoughts on how I could improve my network security?:
If I said that a switch and router are the same thing, people would be quick to correct me because they are not the same thing.
But an L3 switch and a router ARE the same things. This is a not even like the router and firewall piece where it is two parts of the same device that always get merged even when the functionality isn't technically synonymous. But L3 Switch and Router are literally two words for the same thing.
Even the general term "switch" is just short for "multi-port bridge." There was a time when we had both L2 and L3 switches, but the term switch didn't exist yet.
-
@dave247 said in Thoughts on how I could improve my network security?:
How about if I start calling the switch a server? I wouldn't, because it's not correct.
Depends on the implication. It's not a general purpose server, which is what most people use that term to mean. But is it a DHCP server? Absolutely.
-
There are places where router and firewall merge and can't be pulled apart - and that is NAT. A NAT translation is assumed to be part of the routing functions, but is a firewall. NAT literally makes the router and the firewall be the same component and function. Of course, in theory, you can have a router that doesn't do NAT, but in the real world, no one has made one since the early 1990s, and maybe not even then.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Thoughts on how I could improve my network security?:
There are places where router and firewall merge and can't be pulled apart - and that is NAT. A NAT translation is assumed to be part of the routing functions, but is a firewall. NAT literally makes the router and the firewall be the same component and function. Of course, in theory, you can have a router that doesn't do NAT, but in the real world, no one has made one since the early 1990s, and maybe not even then.
Exactly. When packets reach the NAT and have nowhere to go, they get dropped. That's firewall.
-
@dave247 I totally get your point that in most cases, routers and firewalls are different aspects of the device. And that is good for everyone to understand. But it is also important, I'd say far more important, for everyone to understand that in the real world, and for all utility even in the theoretical world, you can't have a router that isn't a firewall and anything that is a firewall can be a router.
It's less important that people understand that L3 Switches are always routers, but it is the same concept. If someone asks if you have a router in between point A and B and all you have there is an L3 switch, your answer is "yes".
The reason that it is more important that people understand that router always means firewall and firewall always means router (at least optionally) is because there is a new epidemic of people thinking firewall means something totally different and crazy things are being thought now - where people actually think that they have routers that aren't firewalls.
-
The key reason that we state that firewalls and routers are one and the same is because the one thing that is most important is that no one come away thinking that there is a router that isn't a firewall. The terms are literally used interchangeably to the point that you never know what someone means when they say one or the other. There is value to understanding every aspect of how they are different aspects of the same device - but you can't risk someone thinking that you can have a non-firewall router in order to do that. And the problem is, anyone that needs this explained is at risk of that confusion. So being over the top about how much they are one and the same, and downplaying how they are two different aspects, is important because anyone in the position of needing this explained only needs to know that the terms are interchangeable for all intents and purposes. By knowing that, and not knowing that they are different aspects, they are perfectly functional. But if they only learn that they are different aspects, they've not learned the one thing that they need to know.
So to protect people from confusion and not knowing how to protect themselves, we state it in that way. Specifically to avoid confusion where it is most likely, and most dangerous.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Thoughts on how I could improve my network security?:
Basically, I see "IT Advice" as defining "what good looks like" so that we have a bar against which to measure, because we can't look at real world businesses, as they rare do things well.
I like the term "what good looks like" a lot, it's a good way to discuss things.
I'm still learning "what good looks like" for many things, since over the last couple of years I've discovered I'm in an environment of terrible-but-sort-of-functions.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Thoughts on how I could improve my network security?:
The key reason that we state that firewalls and routers are one and the same is because the one thing that is most important is that no one come away thinking that there is a router that isn't a firewall. The terms are literally used interchangeably to the point that you never know what someone means when they say one or the other.
Then this is part of the problem. Why not refer to them as router/firewalls or something more reasonable? If I said, "I'm going into the firewall to program these static routes", it wouldn't sound right.
So to protect people from confusion and not knowing how to protect themselves, we state it in that way. Specifically to avoid confusion where it is most likely, and most dangerous.
Yet it has caused confusion.
-
@tim_g said in Thoughts on how I could improve my network security?:
@scottalanmiller said in Thoughts on how I could improve my network security?:
There are places where router and firewall merge and can't be pulled apart - and that is NAT. A NAT translation is assumed to be part of the routing functions, but is a firewall. NAT literally makes the router and the firewall be the same component and function. Of course, in theory, you can have a router that doesn't do NAT, but in the real world, no one has made one since the early 1990s, and maybe not even then.
Exactly. When packets reach the NAT and have nowhere to go, they get dropped. That's firewall.
Yeah, NAT is also not the firewall.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Thoughts on how I could improve my network security?:
@dave247 I totally get your point that in most cases, routers and firewalls are different aspects of the device. And that is good for everyone to understand. But it is also important, I'd say far more important, for everyone to understand that in the real world, and for all utility even in the theoretical world, you can't have a router that isn't a firewall and anything that is a firewall can be a router.
It's less important that people understand that L3 Switches are always routers, but it is the same concept. If someone asks if you have a router in between point A and B and all you have there is an L3 switch, your answer is "yes".
The reason that it is more important that people understand that router always means firewall and firewall always means router (at least optionally) is because there is a new epidemic of people thinking firewall means something totally different and crazy things are being thought now - where people actually think that they have routers that aren't firewalls.
Ok I'm glad you get my point. This whole argument (just like many others on here and on SpiceWorks) has ultimately come down to semantics.
-
@dave247 said in Thoughts on how I could improve my network security?:
@scottalanmiller said in Thoughts on how I could improve my network security?:
The key reason that we state that firewalls and routers are one and the same is because the one thing that is most important is that no one come away thinking that there is a router that isn't a firewall. The terms are literally used interchangeably to the point that you never know what someone means when they say one or the other.
Then this is part of the problem. Why not refer to them as router/firewalls or something more reasonable? If I said, "I'm going into the firewall to program these static routes", it wouldn't sound right.
I agree, it sounds odd. BUT, I think it is done. People who have UTMs, say a Palo Alto, will often say that they are putting routes into their UTM or into their firewall. The issue is that people think of those only as firewalls, but they are routers as much as any other router, too.
-
@dave247 said in Thoughts on how I could improve my network security?:
@tim_g said in Thoughts on how I could improve my network security?:
@scottalanmiller said in Thoughts on how I could improve my network security?:
There are places where router and firewall merge and can't be pulled apart - and that is NAT. A NAT translation is assumed to be part of the routing functions, but is a firewall. NAT literally makes the router and the firewall be the same component and function. Of course, in theory, you can have a router that doesn't do NAT, but in the real world, no one has made one since the early 1990s, and maybe not even then.
Exactly. When packets reach the NAT and have nowhere to go, they get dropped. That's firewall.
Yeah, NAT is also not the firewall.
But it is. NAT is a form of firewall. You can't NAT without firewall. But you also can't NAT without router. It's where the two are forced to overlap.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Thoughts on how I could improve my network security?:
@dave247 said in Thoughts on how I could improve my network security?:
@tim_g said in Thoughts on how I could improve my network security?:
@scottalanmiller said in Thoughts on how I could improve my network security?:
There are places where router and firewall merge and can't be pulled apart - and that is NAT. A NAT translation is assumed to be part of the routing functions, but is a firewall. NAT literally makes the router and the firewall be the same component and function. Of course, in theory, you can have a router that doesn't do NAT, but in the real world, no one has made one since the early 1990s, and maybe not even then.
Exactly. When packets reach the NAT and have nowhere to go, they get dropped. That's firewall.
Yeah, NAT is also not the firewall.
But it is. NAT is a form of firewall. You can't NAT without firewall. But you also can't NAT without router. It's where the two are forced to overlap.
oh right... forgot about the base NAT policies. I was wrong there.
