2 ms·

They are describing a setup like this: https://imgur.com/a/R2jbfzj https://imgur.com/a/R2jbfzj

• waffleiron 5y ago
  When we are implementing this are there diminishing returns on the luck granted by the pfSense firewall? If not, wouldn’t it be better to stack pfSense and rely on luck alone. This would also save us money as we could run them all on the same server in VMs. Sincerely, your customer
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• dhx 5y ago
  In that example network, the Chinese, US, Russian, Israeli and other firewall vendors with their products in series could all have access to the network as each of them has implemented a backdoor that triggers on a hidden condition such as HMAC(secret_backdoor_key, CONCAT(ip.source_address, tcp.source_port, ip.destination_address, tcp.destination_port)) == tcp.sequence_number. Obviously if such a scenario were to play out, a backdoor would be designed to look like a mistaken bug in the software (also making it very hard to detect) rather than the simple example. Fault tolerant architectures such as N-modular redundancy[1] (typically used in the aerospace sector) may provide a more accurate architecture up front. Making protocols much more deterministic and only using nothing-up-my-sleeve numbers would be a good line of investigation. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_modular_redundancy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_modular_redundancy [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing-up-my-sleeve_number https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing-up-my-sleeve_number