It is the easiest and simplest way to say that I'm correct and have the well established, real world source to back that up. Personal experience, bah... internationally recognized skills and experiences assessment? That is something worth listening to.
That seems to be one of your default answers on several of your threads. Demonstrating the ability to Cut & Paste really is not too impressive these days.
I have discusses these definitions at length on this very board previously... and aside from that, users now know the proper terms to search for what they want. It is unreasonable to expect a user to post their entire breadth of knowledge on any given subject in every post that particular post is mentioned.
You were doing so well at constructively contributing. But why didn’t you provide the definitions as well? Lack of Attention to Detail! Blissful ignorance does provide you with an outstanding party though.
How is this a label? By definition, those who do not know any better and in fact swallow the tripe about two types of firewalls are naive. I suppose I could have said "people who are uneducated on the subject and have made no more than a minimal effort to educate themselves." however, "naive" works just as well.
It is nonsensical to place labels upon folks and it demonstrates you have an ego issue.
Furthermore... my ego might be huge, but I don't see how that or any other ad hominems relate to the different types of firewalls.
So you hold that it makes more sense to take the short road and explain something by the box it comes in rather than what it does?
The biggest problem with classifying firewalls by those 5 guidelines instead of hardware/software is that it becomes INCREDIBLY difficult to explain even the most basic security to a home user.
My line of business is being a security expert and using and in this case using those definitions, plus assurance evaluations and whatever other data is appropriate and then presenting the client with the best choice for their requirements (business needs, ease of technical integration, fits in the budget). Not saying "this firewall is software and this firewall is hardware, which one do you want?" This tells the user nothing at all compared to: "This firewall has the ability to meet what I feel is the most correct architecture for your network with the greatest of ease, it can processes Xdata/s which considering your projected rate of growth should give you a life-cycle expectancy of Y months. It has an ISO-15408 evaluation of X that meets or exceeds both relevant industry standards and your clients' requirements as well. The price is Z, and considering the reduction in risk, the duration of the life-cycle and reduction in overall maintenance man-hours, you will notice that the cost-benefit ration is quite favorable."
This post was mainly directed towards people doing that kind of work, not those in your business catch.
If you approach your client with anything less, you are not really filling the full potential of the role. The client pays you to think and research, not just to throw names out alongside some arbitrary classification.
So many systems these days are 24/7 systems, for whatever reason (which may be unknown to you). Considering that availiability is a cornerstone of the security requirement triad... seems a big consideration.
That is one reason why I p1$$ myself at these people bragging about their "uptime". If a system is up, and does not need to be, it is a risk that you should not be taking.
The simple fact of the matter is that "software firewall" and "hardware firewall" are not only industry inappropriate, but those terms reveal NOTHING about the firewall's functionality or capabilities. If a term provides no useful information, what value does it have?