RE: Why Tom recommended NOT to use a gateway for FW Clients

The FW client only intercepts Winsock calls.  Any app using functionality
below that will effectively circumvent the FW client.  If the host is
secureNAT, then they have a better (not guaranteed) chance of using ISA.  If
the host isn't secureNAT, they get nada outside the immediate subnet.

Jim Harrison
MCP(NT4, W2K), A+, Network+, PCG

----- Original Message -----
From: "Nigel Carroll" <nigel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "[ISAserver.org Discussion List]" <isalist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2001 04:16
Subject: [isalist] RE: Why Tom recommended NOT to use a gateway for FW
Clients


http://www.ISAserver.org


I hear what your saying Jim but my reading strongly suggests that even
if you config a default GW the FW client s\ware will intercept all calls
(inc DNS) and redirect to ISA anyway.

Muqeem suggested that its best to give clients only one way out - again
I understand the logic Muqeem but again the FW client will intercept
anyway and infact configuring your clients with a default GW may be a
good idea since they could fallback to a secureNAT client if something
goes wrong with the FW s\ware.

Any other suggestions?
Nigel

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Harrison [mailto:jim@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, 27 November 2001 23:07
Subject: Re: Why Tom recommended NOT to use a gateway for FW Clients


A host with a default route to the ISA via its default gateway becomes a
secureNAT client.  If you don't want them to become secureNAT, don't
point
their default gateways to the ISA server.

------------------------------------------------------
You are currently subscribed to this ISAserver.org Discussion List as:
jim@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send a blank email to $subst('Email.Unsub')




Other related posts: