[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       fwtk-users
Subject:    Re: FWTK x-gw Security Advisory [GSA2000-01]
From:       ark () eltex ! ru
Date:       2000-10-31 23:42:43
[Download RAW message or body]

[To be removed from this list send the message "unsubscribe fwtk-users" in the
BODY of a mail message to majordomo@ex.tis.com.]

nuqneH,

> >Ok, he abused copy-block programming somehow, but it is much better than
> >things written by TIS/NAI after he left anyways ;).
> 
> Just FYI: Marcus didn't write all of the FWTK. I don't think any of x-gw is 
> his code.
> Nor is any of http-gw.

I know. I also don't use http-gw because squid-gw looks better for me ;)

> 
> I do appreciate the 'compliment' though. Gee, I thought I wrote pretty good 
> code.

Sorry, you misunderstood me - i was talking about http-gw (not to say http-gw
is really bad - but it looks too big for such programming style), x-gw and 
things that did not go into fwtk but are/were present in Gauntlet. 
(some are really nasty)

> Actually, I'd say that some of the firewall code written after Marcus left 
> - particularly the Gauntlet for NT proxies - were quite an improvement. (I 
> can say that unbiased since I didn't write any of it.)

Sure it is possible, but..

> I haven't seen Gauntlet for Unix source since 4.0 so I can't judge the 
> quality. I assume you have seen recent Gauntlet source or have some other 
> reason to deem the recent code not worthy. :-)

Nope, i was talking about 3.2 and 4.0 - i don't have newer code too :(
(it would be interesting to have a look, though)

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

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]