Whilst I appreciate not a rather emotive question, but is Smoothwall any
good?

Whilst I appreciate not a rather emotive question, but is Smoothwall any
good? We currently run Checkpoint's Firewall-1 on a NT 4 server but it's
due
for replacement. We're also putting in place a second ADSL line for
redundancy.

Firewall-1 is pretty expensive and we probably don't use a 1/3 of it's
features so I'm tempted to look around. Running Linux on the firewall
instead of NT 4 with Smoothwall sounds like a) a good reason to get a
Linux
system installed so we can see what all the fuss is about and b) save
some money.
Well it does what it says on the tin but then so do a lot of others. There

"Rob Nicholson" <rob.nicholson@nospam_unforgettable.com> wrote in message
news:KUbVb.1046$vo1.756@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net...
Whilst I appreciate not a rather emotive question, but is Smoothwall any
good? We currently run Checkpoint's Firewall-1 on a NT 4 server but it's
due
for replacement. We're also putting in place a second ADSL line for
redundancy.

Firewall-1 is pretty expensive and we probably don't use a 1/3 of it's
features so I'm tempted to look around. Running Linux on the firewall
instead of NT 4 with Smoothwall sounds like a) a good reason to get a
Linux
system installed so we can see what all the fuss is about and b)
save
some money.
Well it does what it says on the tin but then so do a lot of others. There
are two versions Express and Corporate. Personally I use neither as the
forked project www.ipcop.org does more than more than both of them and
costs
a whole lot less.

are two versions Express and Corporate. Personally I use neither as the
forked project www.ipcop.org does more than more than both of them and
costs
a whole lot less.

I would add that installing any of the Smoothwall or IPCOP systems will
not
get you a linux system. They are firewalls that happen to use Linux as a
base OS. They only have as much of the OS as they need to function so you
will find many things missing such as a compiler for example. If you
really
want to get a Linux system in, install a full distribution and learn
IPTABLES. The learning curve can be a bit steep but it is worth it in the
end.

I would add that installing any of the Smoothwall or IPCOP systems will not
get you a linux system. They are firewalls that happen to use Linux as a
base OS. They only have as much of the OS as they need to function so you
will find many things missing such as a compiler for example. If you really
want to get a Linux system in, install a full distribution and learn
IPTABLES. The learning curve can be a bit steep but it is worth it in the
end.

I did a bit more reading after posting my message and came across a few
reviews/posts highlighting some nasty security flaws in Smoothwall. But
these were a couple of years old so I hoped had been addressed.

On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 22:16:01 -0000, "Mike" <mike@notherematey.com
wrote:


I would add that installing any of the Smoothwall or IPCOP systems will not
get you a linux system. They are firewalls that happen to use Linux as a
base OS. They only have as much of the OS as they need to function so you
will find many things missing such as a compiler for example. If you really
want to get a Linux system in, install a full distribution and learn
IPTABLES. The learning curve can be a bit steep but it is worth it in the
end.


This is true but I don't recommend it. Building a hardened firewall
system involves exactly what you describe - stripping out everything
that you don't need. All code tends to have holes, so the less of it
you have the fewer holes you have to worry about (and patch).

[snip]

And don't be tempted to load up the Smoothwall box with other things
like file serving or whatever; same principle applies - fewer moving
parts, less to go wrong.

Henry Law <>< Manchester, England

"Rob Nicholson" <rob.nicholson@nospam_unforgettable.com> wrote in message
news:KUbVb.1046$vo1.756@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net...
Whilst I appreciate not a rather emotive question, but is Smoothwall any
good? We currently run Checkpoint's Firewall-1 on a NT 4 server but it's
due
for replacement. We're also putting in place a second ADSL line for
redundancy.

Firewall-1 is pretty expensive and we probably don't use a 1/3 of it's
features so I'm tempted to look around. Running Linux on the firewall
instead of NT 4 with Smoothwall sounds like a) a good reason to get a
Linux
system installed so we can see what all the fuss is about and b) save
some money.
Well it does what it says on the tin but then so do a lot of others. There
are two versions Express and Corporate. Personally I use neither as the
forked project www.ipcop.org does more than more than both of them and costs
a whole lot less.

I would add that installing any of the Smoothwall or IPCOP systems will not
get you a linux system. They are firewalls that happen to use Linux as a
base OS. They only have as much of the OS as they need to function so you
will find many things missing such as a compiler for example. If you really
want to get a Linux system in, install a full distribution and learn
IPTABLES. The learning curve can be a bit steep but it is worth it in the
end.

What does ipcop give you that smoothwall doesn't ?

"Rein" <rruiterNO-SPAM@NO-SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:hctc20932mj9d6g0i0oln5dmos9srommi2@4ax.com...

What does ipcop give you that smoothwall doesn't ?


Well simply put, just about every usefull feature that you would have to pay
for in the Corporate version (Multiple Red IP, PPTP support, Save and
restore configuration backup to name a few).

There are also other options such as M0n0wall which provide even more
functionality than Express.

In both cases the biggest advantage is that of cost. Smoothwall started out
well enough as a good open source project but IMHO it got greedy. IMHO, if
you are going to spend money on a firewall, buy something from one of the
recognised leaders such as Watchguard.

smoothwall. It was quite apparent to me that it was just a difference of
opinion about the implementation of a firewall, rather than being a
vunerability as such.

And don't be tempted to load up the Smoothwall box with other things
like file serving or whatever; same principle applies - fewer moving
parts, less to go wrong.

[snip]

In both cases the biggest advantage is that of cost. Smoothwall started out
well enough as a good open source project but IMHO it got greedy.

Mike wrote:
[snip]

In both cases the biggest advantage is that of cost. Smoothwall started
out well enough as a good open source project but IMHO it got greedy.

Hogwash. As has been stated I don't know how many times, the company
revenue actually helps to fund the open source project. Would you rather
all the developers were destitute?

I totally agree with Neuro. I have been using SW since dial up days. Their