[security-area] FIG WG charter proposal

[Leon Gommans]

Inder, Matt,

I concur with Matt and Inder - firewall functions inside hosts must also 
be considered.explicitly. Matt, thanks for bringing this up.

I am currently in "comment collection mode" and will put out a new 
charter based on the feedback received by tommorrow.

Regards .. Leon.

Inder Monga wrote:

>
> Matt,
>
> You bring up a good point.
>
> From my perspective, I was looking at the firewall as a function in a 
> more abstract way. This function could be deployed as part of the 
> stack/middleware (on the same host) or as an independent entity (as a 
> mid-box), and multiple such functions might need to be traversed. So 
> even though issues/solutions might be similar , I agree that we still 
> need to explicitly discuss these issues as related to different 
> deployment use-cases. Creating a generic reference diagram capturing 
> the various use-cases will be useful as part of the first document 
> within the WG.
>
> Inder
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-security-area at ggf.org [mailto:owner-security-area at ggf.org]
> Sent: Monday, December 20, 2004 12:08 PM
> To: security-area at ggf.org
> Subject: Re: [security-area] FIG WG charter proposal
>
>
> Some grid resources operate at speeds beyond the range of current
> choke-point firewalls.  I would like to see explicit mention in the
> charter of attention to the case where the firewall function is
> integral to the host.  There may still be interaction with an external
> policy-control service for approval of rule changes.
>
>                  Matt Crawford   <crawdad at fnal.gov>
>                  Fermilab Computer Security Coordinator
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/security-area/attachments/20041221/8c81f0e6/attachment.htm