Firewall analogy
Posted by Eric Stein - December 27, 2006 CE @ 03:58:49 UTC
I just read the best analogy to network security I've seen in a long time over at Larry Osterman's blog.
From all accounts, the Maginot Line was a huge success. Everywhere the German army engaged the French on the Maginot line, the line did an excellent job of protecting France. But it still failed. Why? Because instead of attacking the Maginot Line head-on, the Germans instead chose to cut through where the Maginot line was weak - the Saar gap (normally an impenetrable swamp, but which was unusually dry that year) and the Low Countries (Belgium and the Netherlands, which weren't considered threats), thus bypassing the protection.
The parallels of the Maginot line and Firewalls are truly eerie. For instance, take the paragraph above, and replace the words "Maginot Line" with "firewall", "French" with "the servers", "German Army" with "Hackers", Saar gap with unforeseen cracks and "Low Countries" with "employee's laptops" and see how it works:
From all accounts, the Firewall was a huge success. Everywhere the Hackers engaged the servers on the line, the firewall did an excellent job of protecting the servers. But it still failed. Why? Because instead of attacking the Firewall head-on, the hackers instead chose to cut through where the firewall was weak - they utilized previously unforeseen cracks (because the company hadn't realized that their WEP protected network was crackable) and the employee's laptops, where the firewall was weak (because the employee's laptops weren't considered threats), thus bypassing the protection.
Very well said.The parallels of the Maginot line and Firewalls are truly eerie. For instance, take the paragraph above, and replace the words "Maginot Line" with "firewall", "French" with "the servers", "German Army" with "Hackers", Saar gap with unforeseen cracks and "Low Countries" with "employee's laptops" and see how it works:
From all accounts, the Firewall was a huge success. Everywhere the Hackers engaged the servers on the line, the firewall did an excellent job of protecting the servers. But it still failed. Why? Because instead of attacking the Firewall head-on, the hackers instead chose to cut through where the firewall was weak - they utilized previously unforeseen cracks (because the company hadn't realized that their WEP protected network was crackable) and the employee's laptops, where the firewall was weak (because the employee's laptops weren't considered threats), thus bypassing the protection.
Post a Comment