Slashdot Mirror


Build a Cisco PIX for 800 Australian Dollars

tallguy_wt writes: "Why fork out thousands of dollars to learn Cisco's PIX firewalling product when you can build your own for under 800 Australian Dollars, as shown in this article by Routermonkey."

394 comments

  1. Uh, what percentage of /.'s readers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...have any idea of how expensive 800 AUD is?

    Translate amounts into some kind of real currency that doesn't involve kangaroos raping koalas. Something like: USD, CAD, GBP, EUR, or SFR.

    1. Re:Uh, what percentage of /.'s readers by I+Love+this+Company! · · Score: 3, Informative

      According to the Universal Currency Convertor, AU$800 is about US$443.

      --

      "All art is quite useless." -- Oscar Wilde
    2. Re:Uh, what percentage of /.'s readers by tconnors · · Score: 2

      ...have any idea of how expensive 800 AUD is?

      Translate amounts into some kind of real currency that doesn't involve kangaroos raping koalas. Something like: USD, CAD, GBP, EUR, or SFR.


      I know what an AU$ is, I live here. I know how to convert to USD and EUR. Never heard of CAD, but guess Canadian, don't know how to convert. GBP? Great Britain Pounds? SFR? Star Formation Rate? What does that have to do with currency?

    3. Re:Uh, what percentage of /.'s readers by Renderer+of+Evil · · Score: 1
    4. Re:Uh, what percentage of /.'s readers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What blooody use is that? That is purely a card to plug into a current PIX - it is not an entire PIX and could not be used for anything on its own.

      Why do we claim to be intelligent?

    5. Re:Uh, what percentage of /.'s readers by cioxx · · Score: 1
      What blooody use is that? That is purely a card to plug into a current PIX - it is not an entire PIX and could not be used for anything on its own.



      Seemed like a good idea at the time. Guess it wasn't.

    6. Re:Uh, what percentage of /.'s readers by lburdet · · Score: 0
      SFR == swiss franks, my friend, swiss franks.

      small country, lots of money ;-)

    7. Re:Uh, what percentage of /.'s readers by mr_z_beeblebrox · · Score: 1

      THe same %age of /. readers who REALLY understand how to use the web...

      Conversion

    8. Re:Uh, what percentage of /.'s readers by The+Original+Yama · · Score: 1

      I think you mean Francs. The last time I checked, the Swiss wern't paying for goods and services with sausages.

    9. Re:Uh, what percentage of /.'s readers by The+Original+Yama · · Score: 1

      If AUD isn't real, what is it? Fake? Use the Web. No need to get a kangaroo to rape a koala (although that sight has gotta be worth a few bucks).

    10. Re:Uh, what percentage of /.'s readers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the PL2 card won't make a PIX boot, this was used as a DES encryption module only and are now End of Sale from Cisco in favor of the VPN Accelerator Card.

    11. Re:Uh, what percentage of /.'s readers by beat.bolli · · Score: 1

      Actually, the official, ISO-sanctioned acronym for our currency is CHF.

      --
      Karma: none (due to not believing in reincarnation)
    12. Re:Uh, what percentage of /.'s readers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dumbshit, that's not a PIX, that's just an encryption card for a PIX.

    13. Re:Uh, what percentage of /.'s readers by jroysdon · · Score: 2, Informative


      To clarify what the Private Link card does - it's basically Cisco's proprietary PIX-to-PIX VPN tunneling method, before IPSEC was out.

  2. lo cost pix?? by leoaloha · · Score: 2, Funny

    and to think I just spent 84000$ for two pix535's. Your tax dollars at work!

    1. Re:lo cost pix?? by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2

      Yes but you did it the legal way. This device is no way, no how legal. You are pirating Cisco's software to make it, that is illegal. Not to mention it's not supported, if something happens Cisco will not come to your aid.

      Now with real 535s you are both legal and fully supported.

    2. Re:lo cost pix?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The hardware is only a couple of thousand dollars, it's the OS that ran you $80000. :-)

    3. Re:lo cost pix?? by Dogcow · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What got pirated, and where?

      People with CCO access can test any of the software there.

      Routermonkey provided no link to download any of the binaries mentioned (with the exception of the highly illegal rawrite.exe).

      Mod yourself up a clue, slashflunky.

    4. Re:lo cost pix?? by dohcvtec · · Score: 1
      Not to mention it's not supported, if something happens Cisco will not come to your aid.

      Get real... Do you seriously think someone who goes ahead and builds one of these homebrew PIXs thinks they will get support if they call Cisco? That's like stealing a car and expecting to have warranty work done on the car. Besides, anyone who builds one of these things is most likely knowledgeable enough to not want or need to call Cisco for support.
      --
      -- Never hit a man with glasses. Hit him with a baseball bat.
    5. Re:lo cost pix?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This article does not mention the failover feature that PIXes have...

      You still need to buy the software still need valid Cisco serial numbers to get all the feature licences going.
      You still can't get support (and yes even people with lots of experience will use TAC).

      Those are good reasons to buy a PIX, these are not solved with a home-built PIX or with a Linux or *BSD firewall (no statefull failover).

    6. Re:lo cost pix?? by monkeydo · · Score: 2
      I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you don't have CCO access. If you ever get software access you'll have to aggree to the license each time you download anything. The license reads in applicable part:

      Unless otherwise expressly provided in the documentation, Customer shall use the Software solely as embedded in, for execution on, or (where the applicable documentation permits installation on non-Cisco equipment) for communication with Cisco equipment owned or leased by Customer;

      NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THIS AGREEMENT: (1) CUSTOMER HAS NO LICENSE OR RIGHT TO USE ANY SUCH ADDITIONAL COPIES OR UPGRADES UNLESS CUSTOMER, AT THE TIME OF ACQUIRING SUCH COPY OR UPGRADE, ALREADY HOLDS A VALID LICENSE TO THE ORIGINAL SOFTWARE AND HAS PAID THE APPLICABLE FEE FOR THE UPGRADE; (2) USE OF UPGRADES IS LIMITED TO CISCO EQUIPMENT FOR WHICH CUSTOMER IS THE ORIGINAL END USER PURCHASER OR LESSEE OR WHO OTHERWISE HOLDS A VALID LICENSE TO USE THE SOFTWARE WHICH IS BEING UPGRADED; AND (3) USE OF ADDITIONAL COPIES IS LIMITED TO BACKUP PURPOSES ONLY.



      In other words you can only install PIX software on PIX hardware. And you can only install the version of PIX software you have a lecense for. No free upgrades and the license in non-transferable so if you sell the hardware the new owner needs to get a new license.

      Don't argue with me about whether or not this license is legal because I don't care. That's just the way it is.

      --
      Si vis pacem, para bellum
      The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
    7. Re:lo cost pix?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Wrong, you can install any version on any PIX with 16MB of flash. When you purchase a PIX with a Support Contract, which Cisco pushes very hard, you get free software upgrades. And the licenses work in the new software.

    8. Re:lo cost pix?? by monkeydo · · Score: 2

      Wrong, you can install any version on any PIX with 16MB of flash. When you purchase a PIX with a Support Contract, which Cisco pushes very hard, you get free software upgrades. And the licenses work in the new software.

      With some support contracts (SmartNet) you get free software upgrades. With some you don't. You don't get anything simply by virtue of owning the hardware.

      Some people buy Cisco hardware used and many people buy Cisco hardware new without support contracts. Those people are not entitled or licensed for any upgrades, just certain bug fixes. If you buy it used you don't have a license for any software at all so you'll have to buy it. In addition if you want to purchase SmartNet on used equipment you'll have to send it to TAC for inspection.

      I guess our definition of "free" is different since I don't consider the upgrades you get with a support contract to be free any more than I consider the fries free when I buy an Extra Value Meal at McDonalds.

      --
      Si vis pacem, para bellum
      The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
    9. Re:lo cost pix?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahh, yes, pirating....you mean someone's intellectual property? That piece of abstraction?

      You're telling me that their piece of software, name branding, and support costs in the tens of thousands for an *established* company, which has been given large amounts of incentives from my, the US, government? Yeah, an individual can buy one of those.(JK)

      That, sir, is the very reason why the federal government hardly listens to individuals and only to special interest groups and large corporations who grease (take your pick) the politician's campaigns.

    10. Re:lo cost pix?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good boy. Roll over. Talk. Good bark. Handshake. Good boy.... (rub your tummy now)

      Here's your doggy biscuit now. I'm going to go eat my dinner now...

    11. Re:lo cost pix?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reading many posts, I must conclude that a lot of guys posting here don't understand why a bussiness wants to buy from a company like Cisco.

      It's not about functional features, yes a Linux or *BSD firewall _could_ do the same, if the company is willing to build that, and have admins that manage it.

      Buying Cisco allows you to not worry about that part, you pay a lot, but you do get support (quite good support actually, a lot better than people on OpenBSD mailinglists going RTFM).

      Another huge advantage is that commercial products integrate with management suites like Openview or Spectrum in once, yes I can build something with opensource, but buying is more efficeint in many cases.

      In some cases the opensource sollution will work, but in many it does not... That reality...

  3. It is illegal by af_robot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why fork out thousands of dollars to learn Cisco's PIX firewalling product when you can build your own for under 800 Australian Dollars?

    Because it is illegal and you will go to jail for stealing CISCO's intellectual property.

    1. Re:It is illegal by Des+Herriott · · Score: 3, Informative

      Indeed.

      If you've ever ordered a PIX from Cisco (or a reseller), you'll notice that the software license costs considerably more than the hardware. While building a hardware clone of a PIX perfectly legal, taking a free copy of the software to run on your clone most certainly isn't.

    2. Re:It is illegal by leviramsey · · Score: 0, Troll

      Why is this a 5?

      Yeah, it's true and all, but this is Slashdot. We have the right to steal Cisco's IP because IP is 3vil.

    3. Re:It is illegal by Arrian · · Score: 1

      I thought reverse engineering a platform to get it to run someone else's software was legal. He didn't even have to reverse engineer any proprietary hardware, everything is off the shelf.

      Stealing the components is illegal, but buying them and putting them together is perfectly legal.

      How did Compaq get started, and why isn't my PC made by IBM?

    4. Re:It is illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is about the software, not about the hardware.

      ok, it might be legal to buy a real pix, rip the software off it and put it on your el-cheapo-pix. But probably you're not allowed to use your real pix then.. (only one license)

      So it doesn't win you anything ;-)

    5. Re:It is illegal by Arrian · · Score: 1

      >So it doesn't win you anything ;-)

      No, but it'd still be cool, even if you couldn't sell your managers. You could probably get the software alone, I'll have to play around with configurator to find out. And, I've had a couple managers that might have bought it if they thought it'd save them a couple grand.

      I always wanted to go the opposite way, though: Run a PIX for my desktop. The damn things never get outdated, though. Worst case scenario is that they just get shipped off to a remote site, so I've never had the chance :(

    6. Re:It is illegal by zerocool^ · · Score: 1

      Does that mean that it's illegal to run zebra and BGPd? Cause those are developed by cisco, it's perfectly emulating sysco software...

      --
      sig?
    7. Re:It is illegal by OrangeSpyderMan · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Except this guy didn't reverse engineer anything. Had he reverse engineered a Cisco PIX using commodity hardware *and* his own implementation of the software, things would be different.

      All he did was build a hardware platform and blag the software from a (presumably illegal) PIX flash card.

      There's no reverse engineering here, no more than building a PC and putting a warez copy of microsoft windows on it is reverse engineering windows *OR* the PC platform.

      --
      Try NetBSD... safe,straightforward,useful.
    8. Re:It is illegal by Des+Herriott · · Score: 1

      Er, Zebra is a GPL'd implementation of the BGP protocol as described in RFC 1771. It does not, AFAICT, use any proprietary Cisco software. This PIX project on the other hand, actually recommends downloading the PIX software images from a warez site.

      I'm not really sure what your point is.

    9. Re:It is illegal by PhilHibbs · · Score: 2
      Because it is illegal and you will go to jail for stealing CISCO's intellectual property.
      And what if I already own a real CISCO router? I can copy the software onto my hacked-up workalike, legally. Sure the "licence agreement" might tell me that it's illegal, but I don't accept that. Unless I signed a contract with CISCO, I can copy the software for personal use. IMO.
    10. Re:It is illegal by rjamestaylor · · Score: 2
      I clicked on the link expecting to find a list of
      • off-the-shelf components and
      • mix of Open Source (or perhaps cheap to legally license) software,
      • instructions on building and configuring and
      • benchmarks against a Cisco-branded product.
      Instead I found what you decried: an article which basically says only CISCO can develop this firewall, you'll have to "score" the pieces. "Props", indeed.

      A worthless, insulting article this one is.

      --
      -- @rjamestaylor on Ello
    11. Re:It is illegal by fmaxwell · · Score: 2

      Sure the "licence agreement" might tell me that it's illegal, but I don't accept that. Unless I signed a contract with CISCO, I can copy the software for personal use. IMO.

      Word for the day: copyright.

      This word, not surprisingly, refers to who has a right to copy the intellectual property in question. If Cisco has a copyright on it (they do), then they decide who can, and cannot, copy it.

      By your logic, if I have not agreed to a Microsoft license and have not signed a contract with them, I would have a legal right to pirate their software. Obviously, that is not the case.

    12. Re:It is illegal by Pii · · Score: 4, Insightful
      If you have ever downloaded Cisco code from CCO, then you know that once you select the software that you want, you are presented with a page detailing the licensing agreement. At the bottom of the page, there are two hyperlinks.

      The first hyperlink says "ACCEPT," and clicking through will present you with the download page for the software that you want.

      The second hyperlink says "DECLINE," and clicking through will present send you back to the previous page.

      The agreement states:

      • Unless otherwise expressly provided in the documentation, Customer shall use the Software solely as embedded in, for execution on, or (where the applicable documentation permits installation on non-Cisco equipment) for communication with Cisco equipment owned or leased by Customer

      That's pretty clear.

      It's also pretty clear that because you need a CCO account to even get to the Software Download page, that you're having clicked on the "ACCEPT" link means that you are indeed accepting the terms of the license.

      I don't care what you do, but if you're stealing, or failing to adhere to an agreement that you made, don't take offense when someone calls you a criminal because that is in fact what you are.

      --
      For those that would die defending it, Freedom
      has a sweet taste that the protected will never know.
    13. Re:It is illegal by SpaceJunkie · · Score: 1

      So abetter solution would be to use a minimal kernel linux with open source that acheives the same output. If its not written- write it. If you cannot write it - find someone who can. If that happens to be Cisco - bad luck. It would much furthar benefit all - and harm the "big nasty corps" much more to create an open source alternative than to steal their products. The main reason I oppose most copyright laws is when they are abused by holders- IE truetype fonts. Not because I would like to out-and-out steal their products. Remember- every pirated copy of windows still increases their compatible user-base, and indirectly- their monopoly.

      --
      OrionRobots.co.uk - Robots From sol
    14. Re:It is illegal by PhilHibbs · · Score: 2
      By your logic, if I have not agreed to a Microsoft license and have not signed a contract with them, I would have a legal right to pirate their software.
      If by "pirate" you mean "download from a warez site", then no. If you have legally acquired a copy, then you have the right to use it yourself in whatever manner you see fit. This is not piracy. If I buy a book, I can make personal copies of any pages within that book, even up to the extent of copying the entire book for personal use. I can even read the original, and refer to the copied pages simultaneously. The same law applies to software - unless you live in a UCITA state in the US, that is.

      BTW:

      Copyright
      n. Abbr. c. or cop.
      The legal right granted to an author, composer, playwright, publisher, or distributor to exclusive publication, production, sale, or distribution of a literary, musical, dramatic, or artistic work.
      I think "production" is used in the context of "production of a musical".
    15. Re:It is illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It's also pretty clear that because you need a CCO account to even get to the Software Download page, that you're having clicked on the "ACCEPT" link means that you are indeed accepting the terms of the license.

      Yes. The license is a civil contract. If you violate a civil contract, you commit a tort, and may be liable for damages.

      I don't care what you do, but if you're stealing, or failing to adhere to an agreement that you made, don't take offense when someone calls you a criminal because that is in fact what you are.

      Generally, violating the terms of a contract is NOT a crime.

      [Silghtly off-topic rant] Deliberately violating the terms of an agreement which was freely negotiated between equals certainly seems sleazy, and is surely immoral. Violating the terms of an unreasonable agreement which was forced on you by a monopolist might be immoral, but certainly doesn't seem sleazy to me.

    16. Re:It is illegal by Usquebaugh · · Score: 2

      '/. News for Nerds. Stuff that matters'

      Timmy posts an intersting _tchnical_ article and all the pseudo lawyers and politicans jump in with the illegal angle. The second post for christ sake points out it's illegal.

      How about some insight into the tech? I know this is becomming a real novelty for /.

    17. Re:It is illegal by Qrlx · · Score: 2

      RHAT vs MSFT [yahoo.com]

      Nice sig, but I believe this is the stock price comparison you are looking for.

    18. Re:It is illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is legal: http://ipcop.hopto.org

    19. Re:It is illegal by Pii · · Score: 2
      I think that, for the purposes of this discussion where:
      1. You are building a machine for the express purpose of running code that you don't want to pay for, and
      2. You are obtaining code to run on a machine that is not licensed to run that code
      ...you are committing a crime. Even if we're only talking about a licence agreement (a civil contract), if you enter into it without the intention of honoring it, you are committing fraud.

      It's not like you don't have a choice in choosing other firewall solutions. For the same $400, you could build a number of different platforms and utilize free code to build a firewall (and that's the approach that a lot of us take).

      I'm not sure if you were implying that Cisco was a monopolist or not, or if your comment was a thinly veiled shot at Microsoft. The two companies are very different, and the landscapes they play on bear little resemblance.

      Is Cisco a monopoly? I don't think they are. They have a tremendous market share, without a doubt, and they are in a number of different markets.

      That said, they have a slew of competition, not only in general, but in each market where they are a player.

      In the Firewall space, you have Checkpoint, Raptor, and a couple of other "Enterprise" players, plus a countless number of smaller vendors marketing "Firewall appliances" of one sort or another. The VPN space is the same (with pretty much the same players competing. Can you even get a firewall with no VPN capabilities any more?). In the Core router space, you have Juniper (!), and several other carrier class would-be competitors. In the enterprise routing space, you have 3com, Nortel, Enterasys (Formerly Cabletron). In the enterprise switching space you've got HP, Enterasys, and others. In IP Telephony, there's NEC, 3Com, and others.

      Cisco is where they are for a few reasons. They make products that are reliable, share a very consistant interface across platforms (within a product type... Configuring a 7200VXR is very much like configuring a 2621 router, making the entire line very "supportable"), and have a phenominal customer support organization.

      Microsoft on the other hand, is where they are because they made business agreements that got their OS installed on every Intel based computer whether it was used or not, they made exclusive licensing agreements which prevented the adoption of competing products, and have customer support (which costs only $400/phone call, whether they fix your problem or not).

      Disclaimer: I make my living working with Cisco products, but I am not a Cisco employee.

      --
      For those that would die defending it, Freedom
      has a sweet taste that the protected will never know.
    20. Re:It is illegal by Pii · · Score: 2
      Does that mean that it's illegal to run zebra and BGPd? Cause those are developed by cisco, it's perfectly emulating sysco software...

      I'm sure the IETF would be surprised to learn that...

      Cisco did not "develop" BGP. They contributed to the RFCs which propose the standard, but it's not owned by them.

      As a follow up, Zebra mimics Cisco's configuration interface. It has an IOS-like command structure.

      It is not, under the hood, IOS, nor does it use any IOS code.

      Further, Zebra only implements RFC based routing protocols (RIPv1 and v2, OSPF, BGPv4, etc). These are open specifications, and form the basis for the behavior of Routers from Cisco, Nortel, and everybody else. Zebra is an open source implementation of these same specifications, which again, uses an interface very much like that of Cisco IOS. Zebra has no implementation of IGRP or EIGRP, both of which are Cisco proprietary routing protocols. (There are no non-Cisco implementations of these protocols to the best of my knowledge.)

      Haven't we discussed this again and again on Slashdot? You cannot prevent someone from copying an interface.

      --
      For those that would die defending it, Freedom
      has a sweet taste that the protected will never know.
    21. Re:It is illegal by Tassach · · Score: 2
      Or this one

      Statistics are so much fun. You can use them to "prove" almost any point you want.

      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    22. Re:It is illegal by PhilHibbs · · Score: 1

      Is it possible to buy a CISCO router without having signed a licence agreement, or clicked a click-through? If so, is it possible to copy the software off that router? If so, there's no lawbreaking occur here. In any case, clicking on a button does not make a binding contract. That's crazy talk. If I've bought (or legally acquired) a software package, and part of that software displays a button that I can click, then I am within my rights to click that button, without obligation, because I own the software and clicking buttons is within my fair use rights. I suppose downloading software after a click-through maybe enforceable, but if I copy it off an existing router that I own, then that, IMO, is legal.

    23. Re:It is illegal by Pii · · Score: 2
      I'm not trying to harsh your mellow, or anything. I simply have intimate knowledge of Cisco's licensing practices because I've worked for resellers and partners, and deal with their products every day.

      I will preface this with a simple statement: I am not a lawyer, but I sometimes play one on Slashdot.

      That it is legal "in your opinion" does not make it so. It may make it difficult for Cisco to prove "intent" if they ever decided to prosecute you, but it doesn't mean that you aren't violating the terms of the software license. (And I'm not saying Cisco is coming after you... They most certainly are not.)

      You can buy a Cisco router (or PIX) without signing or clicking through a license agreement (for example, buying one used via eBay, or some other auction site). The fact remains that you are not licensed to use the product (The seller does not have the power to transfer the license, and he (or someone upstream) agreed to the terms).

      As for "Clicking" to accept a license as you would while installing a software application, there is no equivalent while running router or PIX code.

      Cisco's terms are that you run a specific version of code on a specific platform (The platform is licensed for a specific version of IOS/PIX Code, with a specific feature set). You are not allowed to run different versions, nor are you permitted to "upgrade" all similar platforms to the "highest feature set" for which you have a valid license.

      --
      For those that would die defending it, Freedom
      has a sweet taste that the protected will never know.
    24. Re:It is illegal by PhilHibbs · · Score: 2
      The fact remains that you are not licensed to use the product
      That's preposterous. I own it. I can use it. I never got a licence agreement to use my car's engine management software either, but I'm confident that I'm not breaking the law by driving my car.
      (The seller does not have the power to transfer the license,
      US Code Title 17 Chapter 1 Section 109a gives him the right... Unless he's signed a contract waiving that right. Is it made clear to the purchaser that they are not purchasing a product that can be used subject to the law like any other?
      Cisco's terms are that you run a specific version of code on a specific platform
      And my terms are that the law applies unless I have signed a contract that waives my legal rights.
  4. Erm... maintenance, support, etc by youngerpants · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Well, one reason why I buy Cisco is for the maintenance agreements, the support packs and the like you know all the expensive stuff that gives me peace of mind. When that firewall blows, who's neck is on the line?

    Oh and the fact that the entire Cisco site runs on MySQL should be enough reason to give them all your employers hard earnt money

    1. Re:Erm... maintenance, support, etc by leviramsey · · Score: 1

      Wait a fuckig minute

      So Cisco is no smarter than Slashdot? Jesus H. Christ.

      Still more proof that having money doesn't imply brains.

    2. Re:Erm... maintenance, support, etc by kuiken · · Score: 1

      Well for companys your absolutly right.
      But for ppl like me who just want to learn pix, buying one for that reason seems a bit silly.
      And ofcourse imagine this one :
      person a) Hey what ditro is good for building a firewall/gateway ?
      person b) Realy dont know
      a) whatyou dont have a linux firewall at home ? damn you are lame
      b) yeah well my pix seems to do the job just fine
      *big grin*

      How cool would that be

      --

      42
    3. Re:Erm... maintenance, support, etc by joto · · Score: 2

      person a) Hey what ditro is good for building a firewall/gateway ?
      person b) Realy dont know
      person c) Any distro. A linux firewall is so easy to set up, you hardly need a special distro for it.
      a) whatyou dont have a linux firewall at home ? damn you are lame
      b) yeah well my pix seems to do the job just fine
      c) You are both lame, get a life, then consider getting a clue!

    4. Re:Erm... maintenance, support, etc by mr_z_beeblebrox · · Score: 1

      person a) Hey what ditro is good for building a firewall/gateway ?

      person a is what I like to call a l-user

      person b) Realy dont know
      a) whatyou dont have a linux firewall at home ? damn you are lame
      b) yeah well my pix seems to do the job just fine


      Person b wishes he could become an l-user .

    5. Re:Erm... maintenance, support, etc by dohcvtec · · Score: 1

      I believe this article is intended more for the home user. Setting aside the legal and ethical aspects of the article, it might be interesting to have a PIX firewall at home (once again, if it were legal/ethical.) That said, anyone who builds one of these things for company use deserves whatever he gets. Nevermind the fact that you won't be able to get Cisco support for one of these contraptions, if you get caught doing this you'll be in big trouble.

      --
      -- Never hit a man with glasses. Hit him with a baseball bat.
    6. Re:Erm... maintenance, support, etc by Flower · · Score: 2
      For people who want to learn PIX they can buy a 501. $430 US on ebay. For most homes and SOHOs, the 10 connection limitation isn't a showstopper. I just did an exchange rate and the real thing is actually cheaper than $800 Autralian.

      Legal and, iirc, once registered you can upgrade your CCO account to access more areas than a guest account.

      --
      I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
    7. Re:Erm... maintenance, support, etc by walt-sjc · · Score: 2

      Um, no. You can buy the HARDWARE on ebay, but the license is NOT transferable. Read the license agreement. You will HAVE to buy a new license if you want to be legal. In addition, you may be subject to an "inspection fee". In order to get support on it, you will need to send it back to cisco and get it recertified which costs serious $$$s.

      Cisco does this to pretty much kill the resale market. Bottom line is that if you decide to buy a used box, you REALLY need to know what you are getting into.

    8. Re:Erm... maintenance, support, etc by 0x0d0a · · Score: 2

      When that firewall blows, who's neck is on the line?...should be enough reason to give them all your employers hard earnt money

      Perhaps I'm understanding you wrong, but this seems a little bit unprofessional. You're willing to spend tons of extra company money so that *you* won't be the one to be responsible if something goes wrong?

      Are there still people out there willing to take responsibility for their work?

  5. So? by leviramsey · · Score: 3, Interesting

    How much better is Cisco than the same system running Linux or *BSD?

    1. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's better because it won't let you run Apache, Samba and MySQL on the same machine, which you will inevitably do with a Linux based router.

    2. Re:So? by $rtbl_this · · Score: 1

      ...which you will inevitably do...

      I do not think this word means what you think it means. :)

      Considering this runs off a single floppy disk, you may have trouble squeezing all those other daemons on it, even if you use bzip.

      --
      "Are you being weird, or sarcastic?" said Emma. I said I didn't know because I get the two feelings mixed up.
    3. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If running user daemons on a router is consistent with your security policy, then I doubt Cisco will ever be concerned with having you as a customer.

    4. Re:So? by LWolenczak · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If comparing ipchains vs. pix, Pix wins no problems. But comparing iptables vs. pix, pix looses and runs away.

      Iptables is much more kick ass then pix in my experence. Most of the time, people just buy it because of the brand name... Cisco PIX.

    5. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there're many many packages for LRP. Perhaps not an Apache package.. but many things which can help you to "unsecure" a router :)

    6. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A board with an IDE connector sooner or later grows a harddisk big enough to run apache. It's just natural.

    7. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      pix looses and runs away

      Then just tighten it up.

    8. Re:So? by carpe_noctem · · Score: 1

      Part of the reason that Cisco has made so much money is the same reason that Sun has been so successful: they make damn good hardware and they write their own software for it. Sure, if you've got about a half-dozen computers on a small home network, having a linux iptables firewall is gonna be a much better, more economical solution for you. However, when you get into real production environments, you'd be nuts to try to use a hacked-PC turned firewall.


      Cisco hardware was designed for routing and firewalling, whereas PC hardware was designed to run Windows and other desktop operating systems. Linux is really good at routing (I've used it before to run my NAT'd network), but it will severely choke in high-traffic environments? Why? Well, cisco hardware is designed to be deployed in situations such as this. Much of the gruntwork of packet translation is handled on the network interface card, rather than going from the NIC to the CPU, and back out to the NIC again, etc. There are a number of other arguments as to why cisco hardware is going to be faster than an x86 box running linux (faster RAM, specialized CPU, etc), but in light of the fact that I'm ranting right now, I'll spare you these. ;)


      In short, you don't send a boy out to do a man's work, and that's why so many people are using Cisco's hardware right now, as opposed to trying to hack an imitation of it together.

      --
      "Quoting famous computer scientists out of context is the root of all evil (or at least most of it) in programming." - K
    9. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've never looked inside a PIX have you? It IS PC hardware.

    10. Re:So? by antijava · · Score: 1

      Actually Cisco hardware *IS* PC hardware (at least the case in the PIX). The difference is that the PIX OS is designed solely for the purpose of being a firewall...not as a general purpose OS like Windows or Linux. And the NIC is nothing special...it's an Intel EtherExpress Pro 100/b.

    11. Re:So? by walt-sjc · · Score: 2

      In some cases, iptables wins, and in others the pix wins. For example, if you are dealing with NAT, the pix supports lots of specialized protocols like realplayer that iptables does NOT. I'm seriously trying to replace my PIX with iptables, but the limitations in iptables just make it impossible at the moment.

      Couple other points is that the pix is MUCH easier to configure, and (with the right license) things like VPN's are much easier to setup. It also has great failover support that's TRIVIAL to work with.

      I use 2 lines of defense. The PIX is on the edge, and iptables on the interior. Iptables also lets me do other things pretty easily like a transparent caching proxy with privacy controls and ad blocking.

    12. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and I'm using 3com 905b in an old pix 520 - 5.1

    13. Re:So? by walt-sjc · · Score: 3, Informative

      God, this is so full of crap I just HAD to rebut.

      First, cisco uses NORMAL ethernet cards in their PIX products. It's just an intel chip for example (RTFA or open the cover on your pix). Second, the pix uses a normal intel processor, and a slow one at that. It is NOT specialized. Their Routers and switches are DIFFERENT from their Pixs and LocalDirectors.

      Read this carefully: A PIX IS A PC. THAT'S IT. They put some flash on it, a custom BIOS, and Ta Da! The difference in PIX products is how much memory they have, number and type of interfaces, processor speed, and availability of encryption co-processor boards (standard PCI cards, BTW.) Cisco is using more standard PC parts because it reduces their costs dramatically.

      Unless you have a REALLY f-ing fast net connection, a standard linux box will handle all the packet mangling you want at full wire speed. Anything OC3 or slower can be EASILY handled by a standard PC. Beaf it up a bit and it can handle OC12 or more.

      People use cisco hardware because of BRANDING, the fact that it works (and quite reliably at that), the great support, etc. Yeah, in a middle to large corporate environment I'm gonna use Cisco or some other brand of dedicated network hardware for a variety of reasons (hell, I have a PIX 515UR at home even), but it's NOT because a PC based firewall can't handle the load. That excuse is just plain WRONG.

  6. Isn't it a bit moralely questionable... by GodEater · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...posting links to a story which encourages you sourcing stuff from a warez site ?

    --

    Gentlemen, start your penguins

    1. Re:Isn't it a bit moralely questionable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please give me a single link to a slashdot story which was "moral" and respectful of copyright laws...

    2. Re:Isn't it a bit moralely questionable... by zerocool^ · · Score: 4

      Don't you remember? INFORMATION WANTS TO BE FREE.

      Nevermind that RENT WANTS TO BE PAID, or FOOD WANTS TO BE BOUGHT.

      It's just the slashdot mentality. I *can* get it for free, therefore it should be free. It's not a physical thing, it's only software, therefore it should be free.

      --
      sig?
    3. Re:Isn't it a bit moralely questionable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any one of the many that deals with people violating the GPL copyright. (left, whatever.)

      duh.

    4. Re:Isn't it a bit moralely questionable... by Dogcow · · Score: 1

      I guess we better remove all those stories from Slashdot about file sharing, music downloads etc etc.

      Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

    5. Re:Isn't it a bit moralely questionable... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No way. There's potential libel all over those stories.

    6. Re:Isn't it a bit moralely questionable... by timbck2 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      It's just the slashdot mentality. I *can* get it for free, therefore it should be free. It's not a physical thing, it's only software, therefore it should be free.


      Not only that, but I think it's overpriced, so it's OK to steal it.
      --
      Absurdity: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion. -- Ambrose Bierce
    7. Re:Isn't it a bit moralely questionable... by Nameles · · Score: 1

      If I can get it for free, I will.

      If I can't afford it, but want it for personal use, I will get it.

      If I like it and can afford it, I will pay for it.

  7. 800 AUS by red5 · · Score: 2, Informative

    800 AUS = 441.36 USD.

    Watson still has a few tricks on Sherlock. :)

    --
    I know I'm going to hell, I'm just trying to get good seats.
    1. Re:800 AUS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's cause currency conversion, complete with downloading the latest exchange rates, is integrated with the "Calculator" program in 10.2 rather than the searching tool. Check out the new calculator.. it can convert anything!

    2. Re:800 AUS by kubrick · · Score: 2

      The Australian Dollar... otherwise known to the inhabitants as the 'Pacific Peso'. :/

      --
      deus does not exist but if he does
    3. Re:800 AUS by Anixamander · · Score: 1

      The currency coverter in 10.2 in built into the calculator. An inexplicably slow calculator on my system, but its there nonetheless.

      --
      Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball(TM)
    4. Re:800 AUS by red5 · · Score: 2

      Wow check that out and Standard to metric too. I think NASA should upgrade to Jaguar ASAP. :)

      --
      I know I'm going to hell, I'm just trying to get good seats.
  8. PIX Card by Zephy · · Score: 1

    it'd be interesting to find out more information about the PIX card itself, like how it boots the OS, Is it like an IDE CF type card mounted onto that PCI Card, and if so, can you access it via another OS.. is it just a carrier for the IOS software, or does it perform other functions?

    1. Re:PIX Card by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's an ISA card that emulates a HD controller in order to boot the system.

      Depending on the revision of the card (2, 4 or 16 MB) the EEPROM DIPs were either soldered or socketed onto the board.

      As far as it performing other functions, it carries the DB9 interface for console access the the running PIX, as well as the DB15 connector for the failover cable.

      The card really runs the machine, just using the PII for horsepower.

      Other caveats:

      1- These PIX 520s are now obsolescent and have been replaced by the 525's which have zero parts in common with a PC.

      2- Intel Pro 10/100 single NICS and Tulip Quads are the only supported NICs under the PIX software

      3- Cisco Local Director 430s are the exact same hardware and can be loaded with PIX software (if you purchase the license)

      Hope this answers your questions. If you have more, post them in reply.

    2. Re:PIX Card by FIRESTORM_v1 · · Score: 1

      Would it be possible to boot of an IDE 16mb CF card like a SanDisk? The sandisks are already set-up to run like an IDE drive anyway. All they need is an IDE -- CF adapter. Rare but they can be found, or made.

      We had a PIX diw a week out of the service contract and now Crisco won't talk to us.. I still have the software and was thinking about trying this..
      (no i can not provide copies of said software. My bosses would kill me.)

      --
      Partnership for an idiot free America!
    3. Re:PIX Card by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > All they need is an IDE -- CF adapter. Rare but they can be found, or made.

      http://www.acscontrol.com/Pages/Products/Compact Fl ash/IDE_To_CF_Adapter.htm

      And other neat products

    4. Re:PIX Card by FIRESTORM_v1 · · Score: 1

      I have been looking for one like this for ages!

      Thank you!

      --
      Partnership for an idiot free America!
    5. Re:PIX Card by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would it be possible? I can't answer that. Off the top of my head, I'd think that it would require a modified or custom boot helper.

  9. Uhm. Price is not the reason by jukal · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I quess those who want to buy a Cisco PIX have already made the decision to not make the judgement based on price.

    If you want to build your own one, you could as well do the same using things available under open source so that visitors from Cisco do not have to call Yevgeni and Boris to teach beat you up. ;)

    Well, I can understand that learning the PIX in detail might be a good and interesting reason to build it up, instead of spending $15 000 or more in it.

    1. Re:Uhm. Price is not the reason by jukal · · Score: 3
      > Well, I can understand that learning the PIX in detail might be a good and
      > interesting reason to build it up, instead of spending $15 000 or more in it.

      I forgot to say that kids should think twice before deciding to use this learning method. AFAIK, It is heavily criminal and using a pirate version of PIX OS, is a crime which money value is high-enough to get you prosecuted and heavily punished. Playing a pirate GTA is bad, but this is seriously bad and can get you in serious trouble. I just hope everyone understands it, many teen-h4x0rs probably don't

      Or am I missing something, has someone published a mimick PIX OS under open source or something?

    2. Re:Uhm. Price is not the reason by thogard · · Score: 1

      We don't know what Cisco's take on this will be. Offically they will object on some level but they may not see it as a threat as most of the people that would do this could also set up a linux or bsd router. Its one of those things like why MS didn't mind people using Office at home when word perfect ruled and how they changed their tune when they became the market leader.

      If they don't like this, the flash cards will be very hard to find. If they think it will help bring people into the cisco fold, then the flash cards might get cheap.

    3. Re:Uhm. Price is not the reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yea, it's the same as with fat programs like Aliaswavefront's Maya: The ones who use pirated versions wouldn't buy it anyway, usually don't make money with and BUT learn using Maya. So IF they make money with it somewhen they'll buy it.
      That's what Aliaswavefront wants. So they'd be stupid to go after the kiddies playing around with a pirated Maya..

    4. Re:Uhm. Price is not the reason by Dogcow · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      "Or am I missing something, has someone published a mimick PIX OS under open source or something? "

      No.

      They are using a card you can buy, and they are using their CCO login (and the access to Cisco software it provides) to get the software for it.

      The only thing that deserves to be heavily punished is your shallow, doom-filled assertions.

      Kiss me where it smells funny,

      DC

    5. Re:Uhm. Price is not the reason by adamjaskie · · Score: 1

      Actually, I don't think it could even hurt Cisco very much, or at all. The people using Cisco stuff at a company arent going to do this, because it would piss off their bosses to not have the support from Cisco, not to mention the legal implications. The home users who just want a firewall for cheap will set up a Linux or OpenBSD firewall instead, rather than purchacing the expensive flash card and stuff. The only people likely to do this are the people who want to LEARN how to use the Cisco PIX, which actally gets MORE business for Cisco, as these people who are now learning how to use it by real experience could not AFFORD to purchace a real one in the first place. Once they know how to use them, and learn how powerful they are (i dont know if this is true, but they might be pretty powerful) they may even have their work purchace one for the corperate network. That's MORE business for Cisco.

      --
      /usr/games/fortune
    6. Re:Uhm. Price is not the reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes someone did publish mimick PIX OS (based on Linux kernel 2.4x) you can find it at http://www.coytelinux.com

  10. OSDN/Slashdot.org Press Release by Komrade+S. · · Score: 5, Funny

    ACTON, Mass.--August 30, 2002--OSDN today announced it has rethought it's company direction and expanded into the lucrative market of publically breaking the DMCA. "Cisco can't do shyat," cited Slashdot General Manager CmdrTaco, "We give props to our box0r hacking homeys" OSDN stock rose to a 2 cent high on the pinksheets following the announcement.

    --

    s200.org - visit it (me), love it (me).

    1. Re:OSDN/Slashdot.org Press Release by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I detect some editor moderating on this thread.

    2. Re:OSDN/Slashdot.org Press Release by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jeez, davecentral has been around for ages, and these bastards let it slip into oblivion? Sad.

    3. Re:OSDN/Slashdot.org Press Release by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      4ct0n in th3 h0u53!!

      m4d pr0ps t0 da 495 c0rr1d0r!

    4. Re:OSDN/Slashdot.org Press Release by 0x0d0a · · Score: 2

      ACTON, Mass
      August 30, 2002
      OSDN today announced a second expansion to its recent "black market" entry -- selling links to porn sites. "With our new partners, hotassgirls.com and gianttits.com, we expect to enter a new era of market dominance," said Slashdot General Manager CmdrTaco, "We expect to reach profitability six years earlier than expected." OSDN stock rose to a 3 cent high on the pinksheets following the announcement.

  11. I Predict this story wil be pulled... by (outer-limits) · · Score: 3, Funny

    Within 1 hour.

    --

    Microsoft - Where would you like to go today, Maybe Jail?

    1. Re:I Predict this story wil be pulled... by leviramsey · · Score: 1
      Within 1 hour.

      I'll take the over on that line.

    2. Re:I Predict this story wil be pulled... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well maybe 2 then, but I agree.
      has anyone registered slashwarez.com yet??

    3. Re:I Predict this story wil be pulled... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nope, not yet.

    4. Re:I Predict this story wil be pulled... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      has anyone registered slashwarez.com yet??



      I'll register it and offer FreeBSD with a gimmick patch.

      Warez folks are generally stupid and will download it anyways thinking it's something that should be put in the -=OS'z=- folder.

    5. Re:I Predict this story wil be pulled... by sapone · · Score: 1

      Why should it be pulled?

      They just describe *how* to put hardware together in order to build your own Cisco-Workalike. They don't *sell* them. They don't offer the software for download. It's just a howto. What if you already got the software? Buy it from Cisco? Take apart a machine and get it out?

      Really, it can't be illegal if there is no crime...

  12. Cisco 806 by JPriest · · Score: 2, Informative

    Or you could just buy an 806 with the SPI firewall package for around $500.

    --
    Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
    1. Re:Cisco 806 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    2. Re:Cisco 806 by jroysdon · · Score: 1

      Cisco IOS is inheirently more vulernable than the PIX OS (it is not IOS-based). Furthermore, the PIX 520, which is being copied here, is capable of 6 100mbit NICs, whereas the Cisco 806 router only has two 10mbit ports. Lastly, the two are completely different beasts.

      Both are great suggestions to learn Cisco IOS and PIX OS. Which, if one were just building such a box to LEARN on, where does that fall in the morals/ethics realm? Most folks have no problems "borrowing" a copy of different products to learn on (MCSE is the main thing that comes to mind). You either have to fork out a ton of money to go to a tech school, or otherwise you'd be ethically bound to buy it all yourself, OR "borrow" it while you study and practice for the certification tests, and then get a decent job supporting that product (which helps the company you were "borrowing" from in the first place).

      I'd love to see a PC-based hack like this for Cisco's IOS (simulators are ok, but typically don't have half the commands). But since I know the hardware in a Cisco router isn't anything like what the PIX is based on, it's not going to happen (and thus 2500s and 4000s still sell a bit on eBay for folks practicing for labs).

    3. Re:Cisco 806 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just sold mine on eBay. The 806 is a piece of SHIT! Unless you are on a new release of 12.2T, you can't even reliably get DHCP client functionality working. Cable ISPs (like AT&T) will feed bunk subnet information. SSH and IPsec is great and everything, but my Netgear can get a DHCP lease without having to bring interfaces up one by one and getting weird debug information.

  13. Chics? by phunhippy · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    From the article:
    down the track, make the move over to a rack mount case, because rackmount cases get you chicks

    Right... maybe big fat nasty hair grotesque chics.. no thanks...

    1. Re:Chics? by kaiynne · · Score: 1

      hmmm i can only quote lisa on that one
      "scanning for sarcasm...its clean"

    2. Re:Chics? by Fred+Ferrigno · · Score: 2

      On a totally unrelated issue, where did the "chics" spelling come from? The term has always been "chicks" to me, its PC quotient notwithstanding. Does it have anything to do with the word spelled chic and pronounced sheek?

      Normally I'd gloss over it and think you made a typo, but you're not the first. Is "chics" the preferred spelling among some people?

      I don't really care about being modded off-topic either, this story will be pulled shortly I presume.

    3. Re:Chics? by phunhippy · · Score: 2

      Does it really matter how i spell Chics? or Chiks? or Gurlz.. or women.. slaves.. etc etc etc etc... or (|-|i|5 could spell it to... i'll probably be modded down too..but i got karma to burn i'm still: Very Excellent Dude! lol so why do you think this will be pulled?

    4. Re:Chics? by Fred+Ferrigno · · Score: 2

      Nope, doesn't matter in the slightest. I was just wondering if there was a specific reason behind the apparently increasingly popular spelling change. I like to keep on top of these things, y'see?

      As for the story getting pulled, you might have noticed the posts pointing out that the method described in the article is almost certainly illegal. The hardware they claim is about $800 AU, but a licensed copy of the software is several thousand dollars (or so it seems from the other posts here). This "hack" is only really cost-effective if you're using a pirated copy of the software.

    5. Re:Chics? by Fred+Ferrigno · · Score: 1

      I forgot to mention that the author even offers to sell you an illegal copy of the OS for $400 AU.

    6. Re:Chics? by phunhippy · · Score: 2

      Hmm nah I just happened to always spell "chic" that way..no reason why i guess... as for it being pulled... they've posted articles before on how to circumvent copy protectiob devices and related stuff.. Besides.. if anything cisco would try to have the original site pulled i would think.. then again no one who really **NEEDED** a pix firewall would seriously use this... i hope...

    7. Re:Chics? by monsted · · Score: 1

      Actually, he offers to sell you the Cisco Flash-card, not the software itself.

    8. Re:Chics? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ow u spel tings dowes mahter. Jes cos it soun lik its spuken, don meen it ISN'T FUCKING WRONG.

      You morons can get code right, why can't you write a full sentence in English or any other language without fucking something up?

      Language is the same as C - just think of it as a syntax issue. The fewer mistakes, the easier it is for others to compile. Language laziness is boorish and rude. You're deliberately making it harder for others to understand what you mean merely to avoid inconveniencing yourself. Just think about that next time you want to say 'it doesn't matter'.

      Don't you get it? You're basically saying, "I don't know what I mean, and I don't care - you figure it out." No thanks.

  14. whats up /. by tanveer1979 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    yea you could call it a troll, but i have to say this isnt really like slashdot.
    Posting a warez link on front pafe
    A couple of days back you posted a zip file for crashing windows
    What the routermonkey guy is suggestiong will definately land you up in jail no joking here.
    Currently slashdot is kind justyfying priracy and stealing in names of rights and all bull shit.
    This is not done. Free software and open source DO NOT EQUATE with piracy.
    Slashdot is the domain of geeks, technologists who are sensible people and do not want warez and cracks.
    If I wanted warez and cracks i would go to some warez site and get plenty.

    And in case you are not really convinced, lemme tell ya.. getting hold of flash for cisco is illegal. "Difficult to procure" thats what the article says. Well its plain illegal. So atleast post a warning about this so that some poor dumb ass dosent really try this and land up in jail.
    And could you please aviod such things in future?

    --
    My Aurora : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o91ZsGwJYyg
    FB : https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
    1. Re:whats up /. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Slashdot is the domain of geeks, technologists who are sensible people and do not want warez and cracks"

      I consider myself to be a hacker who likes to explore technology--a geek if you will. Unfortunately, some things are beyond exploration either due to their nature(no information) or price.

      If you use this information to sway your decision on whether to purchase a PIX or not then that is an issue. If you never even thought about purchasing a PIX and decide to use this information to replace your firewall then that is an issue. If this information allows you to *LEARN* about the workings of a piece of equipment that you would otherwise not have access to then I don't really see a problem.

      Open/free has many meanings--one interpretation would be that it is the ultimate goal that would allow us to never have to worry about being allowed to access information. It hasn't happened yet and we still must deal with a world that puts a value on technology and another value on learning that technology--if they even allow it!

      The site really isn't all that useful or well written but it is a start! How much harm could this *REALLY* have on Cisco? Is it more important to go after people who don't have $15K in disposable income or might it actually *benefit* Cisco to have a few more people out there who know this device inside and out?

      As with all information, this has potential for abuse. Cisco has the right to go after these guys and they probably will but you should really get off of that platform you built for yourself that you think allows you to make statements for the whole of any community. I am a member of the community you claim to speak for and you do not speak for me.

    2. Re:whats up /. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Free software and open source DO NOT EQUATE with piracy.

      I agree with you, but since most of the "right to piracy"-people that dominate other piracy/music/IP-discussions on Slashdot still are absent on this thread, let me help:

      "I wouldn't buy a Cisco Firewall anyway, so they don't loose money, so it's ok"

      "I only make a copy which doesn't rob anyone of anything, so it's ok"

      "They have themselves to blame with overpriced product and outdated business model, so it's ok"

      "Bits can always be copied. See them try to stop us haha, so it's ok"

      Slashback...

    3. Re:whats up /. by mad+flyer · · Score: 1

      Ok boys, I work for a Cisco gold partner, I have a cco account and full right to download and test any shit from their web. Can you tell me how is it illegal for me to buy a flash from this guy ? I have the license to use it, everyone who bought a pix too, but if their shit burn (because cisco hardware sucks much mor than their shitty software) your stuck with a license for a firewall and nothing to make it run... I think in this case it's faire use...

    4. Re:whats up /. by balloonhead · · Score: 2, Insightful
      OK, these arguments are tired. Consider this:

      I want to drive a porsche. I could never afford one, they cost thousands of pounds more than my budget allows. But I've heard they drive really well, and I'd really like to learm how to drive one - just for handbrake turns and things that I wouldn't do in my regular car.

      Well, I can 'download' one effectively for free, and use that instead. I get to have a porsche, I can learn to use one; It's not going to have any effect on the company because I wouldn't have bought one anyway, and as it was a 'copy'. Now I can also learn how to take it apart and put it back together again; hell, I could be a porsche enginerr! So I am really benefitting the company! This way they'll sell more cars, because there's more support from them.

      Everyone wins.

      There's no difference is there? Both theft; that's what capitalism's all about. Just because you can have it doesn't mean you deserve to. These arguments piss me off.

      I realise you can't download a Porsche. So don't make a stupid remark about it. The point remains the same.

      Soone or later someone's going to do this instead of buying that porsche, or even worse sell these (identical) copies for less money. Even if porsche doesn't lose any sales, they are no longer an exclusive product - this hurts them in a different way.

      --
      This idea was invented by Shampoo.
    5. Re:whats up /. by TheLinuxWarrior · · Score: 2
      This guy will likely NOT end up in jail.

      Reason being, it appears to me that he built a PIX, for the purpose of studying the Cisco PIX IOS. Not mass reproduction and sales. I know several other people who have done the same thing for the purpose of having a Cisco lab at home to design and test a work related project, or to study for Cisco certification exams.

      I do NOT know anyone who has built one of these and deployed it for production use. It doesn't make sense. You would be unable to get support for either software or hardware faults.

      So maybe you should lighten up and consider that this guy is probably studying to get the Cisco security cert.

    6. Re:whats up /. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Besides... If we wanted warez, we'd be running Windows. We all know that nobody does that here.

    7. Re:whats up /. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you should get your "Cisco Gold" employer to fork over a couple of cash units to provide you with a dictionary...

    8. Re:whats up /. by pmz · · Score: 1

      yea you could call it a troll, but i have to say this isnt really like slashdot.

      Well, perhaps I'm not as suprised, now, that these didn't make it: the RIAA website defaced Wednesday; a possible class-action lawsuit against Microsoft

    9. Re:whats up /. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your analogy is flawed. An automobile is a tangible asset with no restrictions after purchase. The technology to explore is not locked down due to the nature of the product.

      I understand what you are trying to get at but I don't think you quite grasp my point. In comp-sci, you generally don't have access to "how it's done" in popular proprietary software--in engineering, you generally do have to access to "how it's done" by the major manufacturers.

      Let's get off the engineering kick here--this would probably be most beneficial to techs. Auto techs have access to real cars--comp techs/admins don't have access to everything that they might encounter out there. This gives them a chance.

    10. Re:whats up /. by Cirvam · · Score: 1

      Acutally if you can afford a new honda civic you can probably afford a used porsche. Older 924 and 944 models go for under 10K USD, and you can get a mid 80s 911 for around 30K USD. The part that is expensive is the insurance, and when they break its a good bit to replace the parts.

    11. Re:whats up /. by mad+flyer · · Score: 1

      I'am French... and I'm sure that I speak a better english than most of the native americans. And I have a dictionnary... somewhere in the loose... And I can also talk in german and serbian. (even if it's not perfect) How many americans know something else than english ? beginning with your president... And I really work for a gold partner, formerly known as RCS (founded by J.C. Philippe), bought by Ares (founded by M Bourlier) last year.

  15. What the smeg IS a Cisco Pix? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cisco is a company of course, but just what is a Cisco Pix and why is it so attractive?

    1. Re:What the smeg IS a Cisco Pix? by jtharpla · · Score: 2, Informative

      PIX is Cisco's firewall product. If you don't know, then you shouldn't try this at home ;-)

  16. enough... by sluggie · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well, I think it's good to do some hardware hacking, like TiVo modding and whatnot.
    Using opensource software instead of using their expensive counterparts is also a nice thing to do.

    But, excuse me, what is this fucking thing about?

    This puts the whole community into a bad light.
    This whole "hack" or "tutorial" or whatever you might call it is nothing but two things:

    Take some standart hardware and install stolen software. Wow.

    Would you call this an intelligent hack? Maybe the folks over at something like scriptslashkiddiedot.org would...

    1. Re:enough... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think its pretty cool. I have no hope of getting my hands on a pix to be able to learn it.

      Just as in the early days, anybody who wante to use a computer had to go to a university, and if they were at a university, they usually had to pull some shinanagens to be able to get a proper ammount of time on the machine to allow them to grok it fully.

      I think its neat, I think it IS a rightious hack. Regardless of it being illegal or not, it is still rightious. Someone had an idea, it would help some people, and they put it all together.

    2. Re:enough... by vonoech · · Score: 1

      Well said!

      --
      "I'll be better when I'm older"
  17. So this is how it ends by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Open Source Camelot in smithereens...

  18. Wanna do it cheap?? by dr.Flake · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Go to www.freesco.org or any other single floppy OSS based distro, get an old pc and two NIC's and go. $100 max.

    The reason to use CISCO is ultimate durability, stability, service, configurability, speed etc etc.

    hacking this thing together is gonna give none of the above!

    In what setting am i gonna need a cheap ripoff of a professional router?
    Those places that need the real thing usualy also deserve the real thing !

    --
    Why are other peoples sig's always more witty ???
    1. Re:Wanna do it cheap?? by Saeger · · Score: 1
      When you buy namebrand over storebrand, you're being the same kind of overspending 'fag' - just at a different (lower) level.

      --

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
    2. Re:Wanna do it cheap?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no its its like paying 100 times the price for namebrand instead of mixing the chemicals yourself to make homemade lysterine.

    3. Re:Wanna do it cheap?? by oval_pants · · Score: 1

      I use freesco at home and it rocks. Best of all, compared to the above commments:
      Freesco:free+legal=no criminal proceedings
      Hacked Cisco: not free+illegal=meeting Bubba in showers.

    4. Re:Wanna do it cheap?? by liquidsin · · Score: 2

      I did it with an old Pentium 75 (free from an aunt who'd upgraded and wanted rid of the old box), a couple $5 bargain bin ISA NICs and a copy of IPCop. So, including the cd I burned the ISO onto, less than $11 Canadian. It worked so well I built another one with an old P100 at work to share out a DSL line. So, yeah...no need to illegally obtain software when, for what 99.9% of us need it for, the free stuff is perfect. And if you actually *need* a router worth that kind of coin, you should have no problem getting the money. So what else, besides freesco and ipcop is everyone using for routers? (free/legal options only ;)

      --
      do not read this line twice.
    5. Re:Wanna do it cheap?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OpenBSD? :)

    6. Re:Wanna do it cheap?? by dillon_rinker · · Score: 2

      Hmm...well, as long as we're on a tirade against hacking, let's tramslate "Cisco" to "Unix"

      Go to the local consumer electronics store or any other computer place, get a copy of MS-DOS. $100 max.

      The reason to use UNIX is ultimate durability, stability, service, configurability, speed etc etc.

      hacking this thing together is gonna give none of the above!

      In what setting am i gonna need a cheap ripoff of a professional Unix distribution?
      Those places that need the real thing usualy also deserve the real thing !

    7. Re:Wanna do it cheap?? by why-is-it · · Score: 2

      The reason to use CISCO is ultimate durability, stability, service, configurability, speed etc etc.

      I don't think that PIX is the king of all firewalls. Sure, the Cisco logo will be sufficient reason for some people to buy them, but I don't think that PIX is the most secure or reputable commercial firewall product out there.

      --
      *** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
    8. Re:Wanna do it cheap?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can always use ipchains for a good router. Worked well for me. It really beat having to shell out the cash for a Cisco 5500. Ipchains let me do the exact same things and never had any down time.

    9. Re:Wanna do it cheap?? by arnie_apesacrappin · · Score: 2
      [quote]
      So what else, besides freesco and ipcop is everyone using for routers? (free/legal options only ;)

      [/quote]

      I use the NetBSD Firewall Project. It works great for me (P100, 24MB of ram). If I ever get a UPS, the only time I see rebooting it is when it's time to install a new version of the OS. It's very simple to setup, and you can get the hang of administering it with little effort.

      --

      Still, with a plan, you only get the best you can imagine. I'd always hoped for something better than that. -CP

    10. Re:Wanna do it cheap?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Easy does it, dolt... How could a person get so many things wrong in so short a post?

      Ipchains is firewalling software, not routing software.

      A Cisco 5500 is a switch, not a router, nor a firewall.

      If you can show me how Ipchains can do stateful failover, then yes, you might be able to get it to do the exact same things, but till then, you've come up short.

    11. Re:Wanna do it cheap?? by nd3 · · Score: 1

      Build it for cheap by using any of the single floppy routing distos WITHOUT breaking any laws & agreements.

      Warning blatant plug coming..

      a list of many distos & their details can be found at Router Design Project along with router case designs so you could even build the fantsy case if you wanted to :P

  19. Think Music Production... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rack is also used extensively in the music world -- just track down some groupies and show off your rack. And I guess they'll show you theirs.

    1. Re:Think Music Production... by Renderer+of+Evil · · Score: 1
      Sir, your attempt at comedy has failed miserably.

      Try again at a later time.

  20. I won't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks for the info. I definitely won't be trying this at home, at work, or anywhere.

  21. cheaper, better and even legal by bob@dB.org · · Score: 5, Informative
    --
    Acts@core.mailboks.com Acrux@core.mailboks.com Adam@core.mailboks.com Adar@core.mailboks.com Ada@core.mailboks.com
    1. Re:cheaper, better and even legal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Well, of course a story like this would bring all the Lunix and Open Sauce zealots out of the woodwork.

      You know there are good reasons for people to pay for Cisco hardware. Amateur code running on fragile PC hardware cannot compete with that.

    2. Re:cheaper, better and even legal by Alex+Belits · · Score: 2

      Except that PIX _is_ PC hardware. And IOS is an amateurish mess, both in design (userspace-less OS with ever-growing functionality is bound to get nasty security bugs in the process) and implementation (spaghetti).

      Compared to that ipfilter is great.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    3. Re:cheaper, better and even legal by Saeger · · Score: 2, Insightful
      You know... one day in the not too distant future, all hardware (not just tech-related) will be open source too (you can stop laughing), and it'll be almost as cheap and easy to replicate these bits of matter as bits of information. I often wonder what all those titans of industry (like Cisco) will end up doing when they don't even own the means of manufacturing anymore... they'll probably just end up like RIAA/MPAA: writhing in prehistoric pain whilst bribing govt for artificial life extension law.

      --

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
    4. Re:cheaper, better and even legal by Renderer+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      hey, I wonder if the FreeBSD router also puts you behind NAT.

    5. Re:cheaper, better and even legal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      TEa, Earl Grey, Hot!

      Fucking trekkies

    6. Re:cheaper, better and even legal by mbadolato · · Score: 2
      FYI the FreeBSD one has been updated to cover 4.6. It can be found at:

      http://www.schlacter.dyndns.org/public/FreeBSD-STA BLE_and_IPFILTER.html (slashdot filters added a space in STABLE, though it looks as if the actual link is ok)

    7. Re:cheaper, better and even legal by fireant · · Score: 1
      Don't forget LEAF - the Linux Embedded Appliance Firewall project. It's a collection of embedded firewall/router distros that grew out of the Linux Router Project.

      I've been using the Bering distro for a few months now, and it's worked great!

    8. Re:cheaper, better and even legal by LinuxWhore · · Score: 1

      And IOS is an amateurish mess, both in design (userspace-less OS with ever-growing functionality is bound to get nasty security bugs in the process) and implementation (spaghetti).

      I can't disagree more. Cisco IOS is popular due to the fact that it is so well designed. Every time I need to find an unfamiliar configuration setting on a Cisco router, all I have to do is type "?" and I see the variety of possible options. No other OS compares to this. In fact, on many occasion I've mentioned to my frinds that I wish Linux had similar interface. How else can you explain projects that try to emulate the IOS CLI on Linux?

      --

      I am MuchTall
  22. Fair use? by snake_dad · · Score: 3, Funny

    Would it be fair use if you build these beast to store your backup of PIX OS on? It could be considered a very advanced backup medium, with a built-in functionality test ;)

    --
    karma capped .sig seeking available Slashdot poster for long-term relationship.
    1. Re:Fair use? by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2

      No one would buy that argument. You don't NEED to backup your PIX OS because you can get it form Cisco. If you buy lots of Cisco hardware (like the university I work for does), you get a CCO login and you can just go download the software as needed. They trust that you are using it for liscenced purposes.

      This is just illegal unless you own a liscence for the software, but if you did you'd own the hardware too. In the case of firewalls and the like it isn't the hardware that's expensive, it's probably $1000-$1500 at most for the big-daddy stuff, it's the software. When you buy one of their firewalls the price includes both.

      Even on their switches and blades a fair amount of the cost is software. There is more hardware cost as it is specialised ASICs and such, but you still pay a fair bit for software rights.

      Welcome to the world of high-end networking, cheap-skates need not apply.

    2. Re:Fair use? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you going to do if Cisco closes, or decides you need to buy newer hardware? You have a responsibility to maintain the value of your organization's capital regardless of the future actions of third parties.

    3. Re:Fair use? by jroysdon · · Score: 1

      That's like saying what if Microsoft goes bankrupt, or the US Government goes under. Anything is possible, but it's very, very unlikely. Last I heard Cisco had something like $40B in cash/liquid assets.

      If your hardware were to fail, you could legally replace it yourself (we replaced a power supply in our PIX 520 when Cisco wanted $1K to fix it), but you can't duplicate the whole thing and legally run the same software on the other box (although to have a duplicate of the same hardware available wouldn't be a bad idea).

  23. Why buy things at all? by MjDascombe · · Score: 5, Funny

    Thanks to this insightful article, I've realised the true money-saving potenial of stealing.

    1. Re:Why buy things at all? by blixel · · Score: 1

      Thanks to this insightful article, I've realised the true money-saving potenial of stealing.

      Hahahahahahahahaha.... Oh My God... I can't stop laughing. My sides are hurting.......

    2. Re:Why buy things at all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've realised the true money-saving potenial of stealing.

      Not stealing, liberating. Information wants to be free; Slashdot is just helping it along the way.

      Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to liberate some DivX movies off Gnutella.

  24. Cisco warez monkey?! I think cisco should be mad. by tcmardoc · · Score: 0

    well, maybe cisco doesn't care much about freesco, but this is *WAY* diffrent. echo -n "what do you think about this?" read ciscosanswer case $ciscosanswer in 1) damn we're dead. ;; 2) ohh.. i think this is nothing. ;; 3) just a crappy b0x won't hurt us. ;; *) i love cowboyneal. esac

    --
    -JAPAN: ol yor beys ar bilong tu as! -AH!
  25. Australian Dollars? by KidSock · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    But all I have is U.S. dollars. Oh, well.

    1. Re:Australian Dollars? by yatest5 · · Score: 1

      But all I have is U.S. dollars. Oh, well.

      Shit Darlene, is there other stuff outside Americuh?

      --
      • Mod parent up! [a] by Anonymous Coward (Score:5) Thurs, June 31, @13:37
    2. Re:Australian Dollars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      typical fucking ignorance from an american.

      "what do you mean, 'rest of the world'" -- american


  26. AUD? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, those of us in America won't have any trouble doing this. I mean, 800 AUD == 5 USD, right? *duck*
    Oh, and Paul Hogan is all your fault. ;P

    1. Re:AUD? by peterpi · · Score: 1

      well Hulk Hogan is all your fault! ;P

    2. Re:AUD? by Shadowcaster · · Score: 1
      Unfortunately it cannot be denied. :(

      But at least neither of us is responsible for the Spice Girls.

  27. Why not use Smoothwall v2.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The new beta of Smoothwall v2.0 beta 1 has just been released from http://www.smoothwall.org under the GPL

    1. Re:Why not use Smoothwall v2.0 by Renderer+of+Evil · · Score: 1
      The new beta of Smoothwall v2.0 beta 1 has just been released from http://www.smoothwall.org under the GPL

      That sounds really great, but then I visited their webstore. What exactly does the GPL license offer? Is it just the architecture source?

      Clarify please ;)

    2. Re:Why not use Smoothwall v2.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It offers a complete firewall package and source code (just like the GPL requires)

      Here are the release details.
      http://smoothwall.org/community/beta/rel eases/metr o.html

      Smoothwall offer a free GPL version and a closed source corporate version.

    3. Re:Why not use Smoothwall v2.0 by perlyking · · Score: 5, Informative

      I recommend avoiding smoothwall (search usenet for "richard morrell smoothwall" for more info..).
      Try IPCOP for a GPL fork of smoothwall that is not a hidden attempt at selling things and is GPL in spirit, not just name.
      This article shouldnt have been how to make a pix it should be how to make a legal,cheap,open source alternative to one.

      --
      no sig.
    4. Re:Why not use Smoothwall v2.0 by Dogcow · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      "This article shouldnt have been how to make a pix it should be how to make a legal,cheap,open source alternative to one."

      Why not write one then, mr genius?

      Better yet - kill yourself now. The quality of the human gene pool is already low enough without your depressingly negative impact upon it.

    5. Re:Why not use Smoothwall v2.0 by perlyking · · Score: 2

      "Why not write one then, mr genius?"
      I didnt need to, I discussed and linked to a good open source one. Now... what was your contribution to the discussion again?

      --
      no sig.
    6. Re:Why not use Smoothwall v2.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      heh, you dont like people ragging on your article and the fact you are trying to sell warez? poor baby! Wait until cisco see your article, you'll really be a poor baby then!

    7. Re:Why not use Smoothwall v2.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      by the way, moron, IPCOP is ~99% the same as Smoothwall with a different, whats your fucking point?

    8. Re:Why not use Smoothwall v2.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sound like richard morrell himself, though with not quite as much profanity!
      Smoothwall is intentionally crippled so you can pay $$$ for their artificially segregated versions.
      Try em both, and check out both of their communities for support(clue: smoothwall doesnt have one, he shut it down and the smoothwall newsgroup has more ipcop users in it. LOL)

    9. Re:Why not use Smoothwall v2.0 by Dogcow · · Score: 0, Redundant

      You said the article should have been about a low-cost, open source alternative blah blah blah.

      I'm waiting for your article.

      Please, mod me down. This discussion isn't worth having until you post it.

    10. Re:Why not use Smoothwall v2.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are a complete and utter fuckwit, no wonder the arabs want to annihilate your fucked up country

      ps: its a shame you werent going on a trip to Boston late last year :(

    11. Re:Why not use Smoothwall v2.0 by perlyking · · Score: 2

      You should have made it clear that you wrote the article slashdot linked to (I only figured it out when I saw your URL is the same as the pix article). My post didnt mean your article, I mean Slashdots article.

      Furthermore I was responding to the mention of smoothwall in my time honoured fashion of recommending IPCOP instead.
      You can untwist your knickers now.

      --
      no sig.
    12. Re:Why not use Smoothwall v2.0 by Dogcow · · Score: 0, Troll

      Bravo, Sherlock.

      Pity you're wrong.

      I didn't write it.

      Do you blame all the geocities user pages on the guy that actually runs the machine?

      No, I didn't think so.

      I never knew making fun of slashflunkies would have been so fun. Can we do this again sometime soon?

      PS: Yes, you are being trolled.

    13. Re:Why not use Smoothwall v2.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They were leaving Boston, moron. You can't even wish for someone's death accurately, you useless degenerate fuckwit.

  28. "Hardware firewall" by amorsen · · Score: 3, Insightful

    One of the arguments I have heard for choosing PIX is that it is a "hardware firewall" and therefore presumably more reliable, faster, and less likely to break. Perhaps this will make more people realize that the PIX is just a piece of software running on a PC -- just like almost all other firewalls in the market.

    --
    Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    1. Re:"Hardware firewall" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But it still has the advantages that it's all solid state. And it has integral functionality for active-passive failover including state information.

      I don't know of a single non-commercial firewall that has those important functions.

    2. Re:"Hardware firewall" by dmadole · · Score: 1

      All firewalls are just a piece of software running on a piece of hardware. There are no "hardware firewalls" i.e. where the firewall functionality is implemented in dedicated logic.

      The fact that in this case the hardware is a PC doesn't in itself make it better or worse than other hardware. Many other products are built on PC hardware. Another firewall type product that is just PC hardware is the Nortel Contivity VPM/Firewall box.

    3. Re:"Hardware firewall" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An argument could be made that the Netscreen firewalls, which use custom ASICs for packet filtering and VPN accelleration, are 'hardware' firewalls.

      However if you're referring to a software component, then every vendor uses a software OS. Nobody has a packet processing FPGA.

  29. cisco investing in china by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    saw that cisco was extending its businesses to china...

    source:www.e-review.tk

  30. timothy by Elbereth · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    ...needs to be fired.

    1. Re:timothy by Saeger · · Score: 1
      Yeah! Let's replace those damn irresponsible open source hippies with politically correct suits! That'll fix this place right up!

      --

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
    2. Re:timothy by drsoran · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, first yesterday they provided a direct link to a tool to DOS a Windows NT/2000/XP box, and today they're linking to an article on how to build a Cisco PIX and steal their software to run on it?? WTF is Slashdot becoming? If you are just downloading the PIX software you *are* stealing it. It's several thousand dollars.

    3. Re:timothy by Dogcow · · Score: 1

      If you are downloading it through your authorised CCO account, how is it stealing?

      Oh, you didn't think of that.

      Bzzzt.

    4. Re:timothy by SquadBoy · · Score: 1

      Stealing would be the wrong term but it very much violates the EULA to put it on anything but official Cisco hardware.

      --

      Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
    5. Re:timothy by drsoran · · Score: 3, Informative

      From the EULA before you can download the images on CCO:


      License. License. Subject to the terms and conditions of and except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, Cisco Systems, Inc. or the Cisco Systems, Inc. subsidiary licensing the Software, if sale is not directly by Cisco Systems, Inc. ("Cisco"), and its suppliers grant to Customer ("Customer") a nonexclusive and nontransferable license to use the specific Cisco program modules, feature set(s) or feature(s) for which Customer has paid the required license fees (the "Software"), in object code form only. In addition, the foregoing license shall also be subject to the following limitations, as applicable:

      * Unless otherwise expressly provided in the documentation, Customer shall use the Software solely as embedded in, for execution on, or (where the applicable documentation permits installation on non-Cisco equipment) for communication with Cisco equipment owned or leased by Customer;


      *snip* And this:


      General Limitations. Except as otherwise expressly provided under this Agreement, Customer shall have no right, and Customer specifically agrees not to:

      (i) transfer, assign or sublicense its license rights to any other person, or use the Software on unauthorized or secondhand Cisco equipment, and any such attempted transfer, assignment or sublicense shall be void;


      I understand you may think you are exempt from EULAs because you don't want to pay for something, but the company's lawyers might see it a different way. Using any of those images on non-Cisco hardware is prohibited. Period.

    6. Re:timothy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the fuck does EULA have to do with routers?

  31. Tell ya I want, what I really really want.. by _ganja_ · · Score: 3, Informative

    Everybody in the Cisco gig knows that the PIXs are nothing more than basic PCs, complete with floppy drive for software upgrades, this really is no revelation.

    This guy just comes across as some network wanna be. Learning the commands is the simple bit, RTFM, (or just reverse normal IOS commands for a PIX) know when to use these commands and exactly what they do and how this will affect the enterprise is the bit that makes you CCIE material.

    No doubt Cisco will get there own back when he does the CCIE lab.

    --

    A journey of a thousand miles starts with a brutal anal raping at airport security

    1. Re:Tell ya I want, what I really really want.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, damn those funmongers advocating a bit of hardware experimentation.

      Damn them and all the linux haters to BSD.

      Oh, and damn all the Cisco lovers too.

      "Linux users - multiplying by masturbation since 1991!"

  32. How stupid can you get? by jlkinsel · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Today your slashdot moderators have been replaced with Frys employees...let's see if anybody notices..." First "How to test a T1" and now this...

    What jackass would want to waste time and money recreating a POS firewall like a PIX? When's the article coming showing me how to clone a watchguard?

    I predict Cisco won't claim DMCA against this, they'll see it, fall out of their chair at how completely stupid some people are, and continue their business.

    1. Re:How stupid can you get? by Dogcow · · Score: 0, Redundant

      "What jackass would want to waste time and money recreating a POS firewall like a PIX? When's the article coming showing me how to clone a watchguard?"

      Yeah, speaking of jackasses, look at all the slashflunkies getting al dente over the idea that this article should have been about writing an IPTABLES firewall. Funny how if their enthusiasm was converted to textual works (million monkey scenarios, anyone?), it might describe exactly that - the cloning of a watchguard.

    2. Re:How stupid can you get? by Tads · · Score: 1

      Yeah I'd just love to see them try to enforce DMCA on an Australian. LOL. Idiot :)

    3. Re:How stupid can you get? by Anonynnous+Coward · · Score: 1

      Maybe they'll just wait until he comes to the U.S.

  33. Pull the story by balloonhead · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Having this story on the front page (or indeed, at all) is an insult to most of the people who read it.


    For all the column inches devoted to how the DMCA/RIAA/whoever is immoral, you go and put a link to someone advocating theft. This isn't far from advertising warez... even if the server can handle the traffic, the slashdot effect still allows a lot of eyeballs to see that site.


    I disagree with software piracy, and stealing music online; I occasionally do download MP3s, I won't deny it; just as I drank alcohol when I was under 18 (UK), but I would consider myself only a 'minor' user - these files are never on my HDD for too long (I think the record is about a week)


    But this is qualitatively and quantatively very different from /. virtually advocating pirating software worth several thousand pounds. In the same way that my underage drinking (which almost everyone does) is very different from advertising and promoting underage drinking.


    How can any movement to safeguard our rights be taken seriously with this sort of lunacy? Valenti et al will be rubbing their hands in glee. This is another victory for them - if one of the most popular advocates of free software is advertising piracy, then that reflects very badly on the community as a whole.


    And yes, I do consider my MP3 use to be wrong - I'll buy these songs if they release the single but I don't want an album of pricey crap because there's one song ion it I like - I can't wait for services where a comprehensive list of songs can be bought at a reasonable pprice, individually...

    --
    This idea was invented by Shampoo.
    1. Re:Pull the story by Devalia · · Score: 1

      Underage drinking is doing the opposite of taking profit away from the various companies that provide alcohol. Whilst, strictly its just s wrong as some might see this as (PIX building), when young people under 18 can drink alcohol sensibly (in other words dont end up dead in their own vomit) people tend to ignore the fact that they have no ID.

      Just because everyone does it, and that it generally doesnt hurt anyone doesnt make it right. We cant say that one thing should be prosecuted for because the law said so and that another shouldnt be even though the law says so. That said, assuming of course you had a meal with it and are older than 14 it isnt underage drinking :)

    2. Re:Pull the story by balloonhead · · Score: 1
      Laws are aboslutes, designed to avoid grey areas - people are big grey areas. There are things which are right and wrong, but in certain circumstances they are more or less right or wrong - I am not saying it should be made legal, just that 'minor' lawbreaking is the norm.

      Indidentally, underage drinking may not hurt the alcohol sales, but it tends to affect society adversely (vandalism, teenage pregnancy, etc.).

      Now, a few people building a PIX, that's one thing. But putting it onn the front page on slashdot, that's a very different thing. It effectively condones it.

      I see you quite spectacularly managed to miss the entire point. Well done. Want to read it again?

      --
      This idea was invented by Shampoo.
    3. Re:Pull the story by Devalia · · Score: 1

      Nah, i know i missed the point.. only just woken up :)
      heh, missing a button to delete my own post? :)
      sorry :)

    4. Re:Pull The Story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Drinking alcohol under 18 is not illegal in the UK. It is illegal to serve alcohol to under 18 year olds in licensed premises.
      Well, unless it's beer/cider/porter/perry with a meal and they're older than 15..
  34. flash card PCI? by ctar · · Score: 1

    Is the flash card he's talking about a PCI card?

    BTW, I agree with the comments about building a linux FW. Kernel based firewalling and packet mangling is really at an amazing state right now...

    1. Re:flash card PCI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Negative it's ISA, hence why it's stuck with an Intel 440BX board. Needs those old ISA slots

    2. Re:flash card PCI? by Dogcow · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it's amazing how many Linux boxes with IPTABLES are deployed in the Internet backbones and network edges.

      Simply amazing.

  35. Overdoing it!!! by anonymous+cupboard · · Score: 2
    The oage doesn't have anything about IOS/boot helper downloads. Well if you manage to get hold of the code legally, running the code on a non-CISCO platform is kind of interesting as an academic exercise.

    On of the original principles established back when IBM was king is that if you built a workalike, they still must sell you the software. This is not Warez, Crackz or anything else, this getting fair use, as long as you legally source PIX.

  36. Nothing Clever going on here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Note it's the same hardware as the Cisco Localdirector (which yes can be converted to older rev Pix 4.4ish) - Much better firewalls than loadbalancers

  37. newer Intel NICs by andrew71 · · Score: 0


    I heard that newer Intel NICs are no longer supported by Cisco.

    Dunno if it's a hardware or software issue. If it's in the software, you'd have to check the NIC release for use with newer PIXOS releases.

    --
    13-4=54/6
    1. Re:newer Intel NICs by andrew71 · · Score: 0

      I've just been told by a quite knowledgeable fellow that:

      • all Intel NICs are plain no longer supported from OS Version 6.1
      • the guy thinks that the check is done in the software, checking the MAC address
      but the example in the webpage clearly shows a file named bh61.bin which seems contraddictory...

      --
      13-4=54/6
  38. The PIX is just a low end PC, but . . by MrLinuxHead · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The last Cisco PIX I had to open to install a new NIC was a model 1500 IIRC, and it was just a low-end PC board (Intel BX) with a P166 and 32 or 64 Mb o Ram. And a PCMCIA card slot. This handled a T1 with about 1,000 users and had no downtime in over 5 years. The Cisco software was excellent.

    There is nothing stopping anyone from downloading a image from Cisco's site if they so choose. Licencing is another matter. That would be against the law if I read the Cisco licence correctly.

    This story does not link to a source for the files mentioned. That does not make this story OK. It is not OK that routermonkey has the filenames listed, as that makes it trivial to find using P2P networks.

    That being said, you could just goto Cisco's web site and read up on their PIX products and read the docs to "learn how to configure it". But why, if the like Freesco, The LRP, and BSD are around. These will do anything the PIX can do and are quite simalar to the Cisco product. The reason the most businesses want a Cisco firewall is that the CFO/CIO don't want to get nailed by auditors for running a "freeware" firewall. They want a big name to cover their asses. The Freesco/BSD/IPtables combos will do just fine for your educational purposes.

    --
    I may be bad with names, but I'll never forget your IP address
    1. Re:The PIX is just a low end PC, but . . by RazzleDazzle · · Score: 1
      The reason the most businesses want a Cisco firewall is that the CFO/CIO don't want to get nailed by auditors for running a "freeware" firewall. They want a big name to cover their asses. The Freesco/BSD/IPtables combos will do just fine for your educational purposes.

      First BSD and Linux are not freeware. Second, they choose Cisco because they are a huge major market and their products power massive amounts of internet backbone. Cisco has a giant marketing department just like Microsoft. There is something called "brand name recognition" that companies use like: Nike, Coke, Kelloggs, Gap, Microsoft, etc. These companies want you to be comfortable pushing others to get their products. Also, there are a lot more people who are trained in Cisco products because a lot of colleges offer training in Cisco but not BSD, only some are just starting Linux. CCNA, CCNP, CCIE, CCDA, CCDP, CCPASJHFASH there are all these fancy sounding certifications for Cisco alone, hmm, no wonder these managers pick Cisco.

      BTW a BSD box with 166mhz and 32 or 64 megs of RAM could super easily handle a (wussy) T1 line.

      --
      ZERO ZERO ONE ZERO ONE ZERO ONE ONE! Just brushing up for my next big invention: Ethernet over Voice (EoV)
    2. Re:The PIX is just a low end PC, but . . by MrLinuxHead · · Score: 1

      Dear Mr. Razzle,

      I use the term "freeware" cuz that's all the CIO/CFO knows when they hear the term Open Source. They don't yet grasp the concept of GPL, BSD, X11-style licences, all they hear is "free" and they think "freeware". (I once had a perky little girl support person call Apache and Sendmail "shareware". How cute.) BTW, I know the difference but don't expect me to try to explain it to some anal overpriced golf junky or the admin assistant.

      Second, you are right they choose to go with Cisco because of exactly the reason you mentioned: Name Brand Recognition. That does not mean that there are not better products out there, and that some of them ard no or very low cost.

      And yes, a BSD or Linux box on that spec PC would run very nicely on a T1. No argument. But what the average PC jockey may not have known till now is that Cisco's high end $15,000 firewall product is built around nothing more than a P166 and a stock Intel motherboard. Now that they know that, they can build a simalar device, using Linux or BSD or whatever, and there is plenty of otions out there. But I would strongly advise not breaking the law by using unlicenced Cisco software.

      --
      I may be bad with names, but I'll never forget your IP address
    3. Re:The PIX is just a low end PC, but . . by iksowrak · · Score: 1

      There is nothing stopping anyone from downloading a image from Cisco's site if they so choose.

      Ummm, I believe that you have to be registered with Cisco and have a valid SmartNet support package with them to be able to download. I'm registered as a Cisco partner and can view the images to download but can't actually download them since there's no support contract connected with my user account. No free image downloads that I know of.

    4. Re:The PIX is just a low end PC, but . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That being said, you could just goto Cisco's web site and read up on their PIX products and read the docs to "learn how to configure it".

      Yeah, and then I'll head over to a Linux HOWTO site and learn how to configure Linux! Gee, isn't software documentation grand?

      Reading documentation is NEVER a substitute for actually doing it, no matter how good the docs are.

    5. Re:The PIX is just a low end PC, but . . by MrLinuxHead · · Score: 1

      You are correct, sir. I forget sometimes that not "everyone" is regestered with Cisco's support.

      --
      I may be bad with names, but I'll never forget your IP address
    6. Re: The PIX is just a low end PC, but . . by Antity · · Score: 2

      This story does not link to a source for the files mentioned. That does not make this story OK. It is not OK that routermonkey has the filenames listed, as that makes it trivial to find using P2P networks.

      Sorry, what exactly is wrong with publishing file names?

      (Should not be a problem to fetch file names from any PIX/Cisco mailing list or Usenet group anyway.)

      This is about as much "not ok" as publishing what processor you found in your PIX.

      Disclaimer:

      • Information wants to be free
      • "Security" through obscurity is unwise.

      Telling people not to say that there are Rolex clones available out there won't help anyone. Fix the problem (== Rolex clones).

      This is exactly one of the reasons why DMCA and friends are bad from the ground.

      --
      42. Easy. What is 32 + 8 + 2?
  39. Evil Cisco?!?!? by AnimalSnf · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    I'm not sure if I understand what the point of this article is. Sure, it violates DMCA and the routermonkey broke many other laws (as many posters already mentioned), but what is the point. I understand, if not even agree, with the arguments for fighting RIAA, MPAA, Microsoft, and even RedHat (care to guess what tool posted that story?), but why are we against Cisco?

    1. Re:Evil Cisco?!?!? by AftanGustur · · Score: 1, Troll
      I'm not sure if I understand what the point of this article is. Sure, it violates DMCA and the routermonkey broke many other laws (as many posters already mentioned),

      Jebellius Christ !!!!!!

      The *article* violates the DMCA ???? Gimme a fucking break !!! Has everyone just turned into a ignorant whining pussy ???

      Which part of the DMCA does it violate ??

      --
      echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
    2. Re:Evil Cisco?!?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      No, YOU just turned into an ignorant whining pussy.

      The subject of of the first sentence is not 'the article', and therefore it does not follow that 'the article' violates the DMCA. The subject of the sentence is 'the point (of the article)', which is (to) violate the DMCA by stealing copyright software.

      The poster could have been more clear, I admit, but you could have spent an extra nanosecond looking at the post before flaming.

      Have a nice day.

    3. Re:Evil Cisco?!?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One reason to be against Cisco is that:
      "Cisco is to network device/operating system what Microsoft is to PC hardware/operating system."

      It is not a monopoly, but it look like it.
      They implement standard stuff, but build their own non standard stuff.
      I must admit they write most of the standard too,
      but sometime there is no standard because cisco want to keep the solution for themself.
      Sometime good solution for standard are blocked by cisco patent. (HSRP preempt against VRRP???).

  40. How/Where'd he mount the flash? by Arrian · · Score: 1

    I didn't see where he mounted it in his pictures, and I haven't seen any motherboards that have the mounting socket for the flash like the PIX's I've taken apart. Is there a PCI card to do this, or is Cisco using something other than the pcmcia-like flash cards in the new PIX's?

    1. Re:How/Where'd he mount the flash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The PIX 520's live entirely on a ISA board with integral memory.

      The current PIX firewalls such as 525 and 535 have provisions for upgradable flash cards

  41. OK, I'll call it a troll by twitter · · Score: 1, Flamebait
    yea you could call it a troll, but i have to say this isnt really like slashdot.

    Posting a warez link on front pafe

    Was someone siffing on your fafe when you saif that, or do you juff talf thif way? =:>

    Currently slashdot is kind justyfying priracy and stealing in names of rights and all bull shit.
    This is not done. Free software and open source DO NOT EQUATE with piracy.

    Get a sense of humor and logic please. No justification for the "theft" of Cisco's non-free technology is offered. This article simply states what can be done. It might make you wonder why big dumb companies shell out thousands of bucks for hardware that should cost about a hundred and hardware that has better free alternatives. It might also make you wonder why it's illegal to make a copy of machine only readable noise, especially code that's available off Cisco's tftp server. You might even research the mostly public University funded start up of Cisco. Naf, thaf woulf be insiful and infomatif.

    A couple of days back you posted a zip file for crashing windows

    You don't need a zip file to crash windows, silly troll, it does that all on it's own.

    getting hold of flash for cisco is illegal. "Difficult to procure" thats what the article says. Well its plain illegal.

    How about a link to that effect? Owning hardware illegal? Give me a break. What kind of silly laws do you live under?

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

    1. Re:OK, I'll call it a troll by peterpi · · Score: 1
      It might make you wonder why big dumb companies shell out thousands of bucks for hardware that should cost about a hundred and hardware that has better free alternatives.

      There are two possible answers.

      Perhaps the Cisco kit is the best. If there were better free alternatives, then people would get them. I've been around when a cisco box stopped working. By the time I knew what was going on, some cisco guy had come and replaced the gear and done all the configuration required. This was done in an afternoon. Good support really is worth a lot of money.

      As another (less relevant) example; when I was at uni, one of the 4 processors on our Sun stopped working. By the end of the day, an engineer had arrived, hot swapped the faulty CPU and run tests on the new one. The 100 people logged into that machine (yes, 100, all running KDE on NCD X terms) at the time had no clue that any of this was going on.

      Perhaps the free version is the best. Perhaps businesses really are that stupid, and don't know that an old 486 running RedHat 5 will do the same job as their fancy megabuck hardware. In that case, there's nothing stopping someone like you going into business selling it.

  42. Re: LRP by distributed.karma · · Score: 1
    --

    --
    If you moderate this, then your children will be next.

  43. Theft. by nyet · · Score: 2, Redundant

    \Theft\, n. [OE. thefte, AS. [thorn]i['e]f[eth]e, [thorn][=y]f[eth]e, [thorn]e['o]f[eth]e. See Thief.]

    1. (Law) The act of stealing; specifically, the felonious taking and removing of personal property, with an intent to deprive the rightful owner of the same; larceny.

    Note: To constitute theft there must be a taking without the owner's consent, and it must be unlawful or felonious; every part of the property stolen must be removed, however slightly, from its former position ; and it must be, at least momentarily, in the complete possession of the thief. See Larceny, and the Note under Robbery.

    -Dictionary.com

    1. Re:Theft. by edhall · · Score: 2, Funny

      Dictionaries don't have legal force. The common-law definition of "theft" (which the dictionary describes) was superceded long, long ago, first by espionage laws and later by trade secret laws. The principles involved were well established before computer programs even existed.

      -Ed
    2. Re:Theft. by rjamestaylor · · Score: 1

      Having read the article, I noted that the author requires one to "score" a PIX flash card and obtain from a Warez buddy the PIX OS. Two counts of theft (unless PIX flash cards are available individually; if so, only one count) promoted by the article.

      --
      -- @rjamestaylor on Ello
    3. Re:Theft. by terrymr · · Score: 2

      actually it involves an intent to *PERMANENTLY* deprive the owner of the property.

  44. Pull The Story by David+Off · · Score: 1
    > I disagree with software piracy, and stealing music online; I occasionally do download MP3s, I won't deny it; just as I drank alcohol when I was under 18 (UK)

    Drinking alcohol under 18 is not illegal in the UK. It is illegal to serve alcohol to under 18 year olds in licensed premises.

    > these files are never on my HDD for too long (I think the record is about a week)

    > But this is qualitatively and quantatively very different from /. virtually advocating pirating software worth several thousand pounds.

    You are correct, /. isn't breaking the law but you are. You are stealing MP3s online, /. isn't doing anything illegal. Not only that but you've just fessed up to it in front of the millions (well a few dozen) /. readers. You need a better grip legal and illegal I think. Doh!

    David

  45. Cisco's (unofficial) position by knick · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Details on how to do this surfaced on some cisco study boards 12-18 months ago. Most of the people on the board were interested in this to be able to add a Pix to thier home study lab. Groupstudy had a very long thread on this. They were dubbed the 'FrankenPix'

    Cisco is very well represented on the board, and they never said a word to anybody about not doing this, and sort of allowed it to happen.

    On the other hand, when FrankenPix's started appearing on eBay, they cracked down, hard and quick. But, to this day, they still haven't said anything during the discussions o the cisco study boards.

    My view on this is they really don't care if people build FrankenPix's for home study, after all, that's just going to help sell more Pix in the long run. (Checkpoint, afterall, will gladly give you 30-day trail licenses for FireWall-1 for home study) But, if you try to build and sell these, they WILL get you. (And honestly, if you want to use these boxes in a professional enviorment for day-to-day usage, you are asking for trouble.)

    --dirt

  46. Stupid question ... by AftanGustur · · Score: 5, Interesting


    I guess there is a lot of people who have been playing with ipfw, iptables, ipchains etc ...
    And would realy, sincerely, like to know:

    What can I do with a Cisco PIX that I can't do with Linux and IPTables ?

    --
    echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
    1. Re:Stupid question ... by MondoMor · · Score: 0

      You can't get the rush of exhilaration from stealing. DUH.

    2. Re:Stupid question ... by AftanGustur · · Score: 2
      You can't get the rush of exhilaration from stealing

      No, not realy. I was thinking of it in terms of a solution to propose to the company where I work. The PIX would been bought + a support contract for it.

      I just don't see the added value in comparison to Linux/IPTables .

      --
      echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
    3. Re:Stupid question ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You get a lot of completely arcane commands with no structure, that even IOS experts have trouble remembering.

      Compared to this, iptables is extremely easy to set up.

    4. Re:Stupid question ... by clarkc3 · · Score: 1
      What can I do with a Cisco PIX that I can't do with Linux and IPTables

      triple DES encryption and act as a stateful firewall

    5. Re:Stupid question ... by rob_from_ca · · Score: 4, Informative

      1. You can't get familiar with a PIX by using a free firewall, so it has some educational benefit (although if you "get" what firewalls do, the rest is mostly just syntax).

      2. Stateful failover. I don't think any of the free options support this. With the PIX, you can plug two in via a serial cable in a master/slave configuration, and the master constantly sends it's state to the slave. If the master dies, the slave takes over and no TCP sessions are dropped. Only you can decide if this feature is important to you.

    6. Re:Stupid question ... by killmenow · · Score: 3, Funny
      What can I do with a Cisco PIX that I can't do with Linux and IPTables ?
      Brag?
    7. Re:Stupid question ... by AftanGustur · · Score: 2
      triple DES encryption and act as a stateful firewall

      Well, IPTables is a stateful firewall.

      And "triple des encryption" ?? Meaning PIX/PIX connections are encrypted ? I think FreeSWAN could solve that problem ?? Unless I am not understanding correctly... "triple DES encryption" could realy mean a lot of things in this context.

      --
      echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
    8. Re:Stupid question ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who brags about being a mere end user of proprietary software, or having paid far too much for it?

      For that matter, who brags about having a firewall at all? You only need one if you have a network of machines known to be insecure....

    9. Re:Stupid question ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Just as a heads up, the netfilter guys are actively working on this for Linux.

  47. Re:OT: overpaid baseball PUSSIES by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Military personnel deserves to get shit on.

    A profession dedicated to wasting human life shouldn't be admired.

  48. Where could I find an Cisco 16MB PIX Flash card ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've found an Cisco 16MB ISA FLASH CARD for 695$US
    at www.ibuyernet.com. This guy speaks of 400$US.

    Does anybody know where I can find this card for such a low price ?

    BTW, this card looks obsolete to me. Cisco PIX 5.1
    needs at least 32 MB.

  49. PIX 501 is the way to go by iksowrak · · Score: 2, Informative

    The other way to learn the PIX OS for close to the same price is to pick up a PIX 501. These little boxes run for $400-$600 depending on where you find them and they run the full PIX OS. You're limited to 2 interfaces (no playing with a DMZ) but there really is a lot of stuff you can learn and do with these things.

    1. Re:PIX 501 is the way to go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And upgrading the processor is stealing then?

    2. Re:PIX 501 is the way to go by jroysdon · · Score: 1

      Great advice! The only remaining upside to the FrankenPix for study would them be to learn how to handle 3+ interfaces (multiple firewalled DMZs, etc).

  50. Open Source variant by DreamerFi · · Score: 3, Informative

    I see a lot of "stealing" comments. So, instead, go the Open Source route and build your own firewall with the NetBSD/i386 Firewall Project

    Yes, yes, I know, blatant plug

    -John

  51. Oh please! Quit with the smarmy outrage. by deek · · Score: 3, Interesting


    Look, there's plenty of reasons why a company would want to purchase a PIX from Cisco. Many have been outlined in postings already ... support, service, quality guarantuee, etc. Cisco have the best support of any company I know, bar none!

    A student wishing to practice configuring a PIX would benefit greatly from this information. They obviously wouldn't be able to afford a full PIX, so putting together a test box is their only choice.

    As far as I'm concerned, this info can only benefit Cisco, as they get a whole bunch of people that know their product inside out. That then tips over into increased sales, as these people recommend using a PIX to their boss.

    DeeK

  52. Or if that's too diffucult by DreamerFi · · Score: 3, Informative
    1. Re:Or if that's too diffucult by psych031337 · · Score: 2

      ...and there's more...

      www.fli4l.de
      www.coyotelinux.[com|org|net] too lazy to check
      www.freesco.org
      www.smoothwall.org

      --
      +++ath0
  53. found one by djweis · · Score: 2, Informative

    I found one on ebay here .

    1. Re:found one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so what?

  54. Rethoric trick by stud9920 · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I realise you can't download a Porsche. So don't make a stupid remark about it. The point remains the same
    Congratulations. You just used a trick you found in your rethorics 101 manual : using the other party's arguments and telling that's a stupid argument period.

    Well yes, you can't indeed download a Porsche. The only resources you cost for downloading a file on the internet is some bandwidth from one of your warez peers (and granted, this bandwidth taken is also taken from other, legal users, but that's what Terms of Service exist for).

    In the case of the Porsche however it cost resources paying the factory workers and the raw material entering the factory. The point is NOT the same.

    Personally I only pay software that is reasonably priced - generally second hand games. Most of the software nowadays is 90 percent bloat, and after spending the most important part of my paycheck buying the hardware John Carmack and Bill Gates decided I had to have to run their software, I just can't afford their software anymore. Their fault. If they were to keep their software unbloated, I would have enough with a 486. Then I would be able to buy their software. Some time long gone, programming was an art, with limited resources so you really had to do your best to use the hardware properly. Now the software developers just write shitty code and waits for Intel to release the next stepping of their CPUs, leaving the low end users in the shit.

    So the problem IMNSHO is between the hardware capitalists and the software capitalists. Either software is good, gets bought and hardware doesn't get upgraded, either hardware is good and software bloats.

    And I can't afford both !
    1. Re:Rethoric trick by Lars+T. · · Score: 2
      Personally I only pay software that is reasonably priced

      And all other software you just pirate?

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    2. Re:Rethoric trick by slakdrgn · · Score: 1
      Its not stealing! Not if I'm using it for "Educational Purposes Only" and as long as I don't forget to "Delete it within 24 hours" or "buy it after trying it out."

      (yea I'll prolly be trolled, but still funny anyways ;)

  55. /. Hypocrites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All of you complaining saying this is stealing... errr how come when it's mp3's you guys don't give a crap? You all seem to say "screw riaa screw the artists" when it's music, but when it comes to something closer to what you do for a living (computers) you scream and shout?

  56. Ya know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To be perfectly honest, I'd rather have the specs on building an inexpensive rack case. Hardware costs $$$ for a reason, or else people wouldn't buy it. SGI, Macintosh, Cisco... then again, people drink Starbucks coffee, pay for it out the ass, and don't seem to jump for less expensive and better alternatives.

  57. Illegal? So what, it's still news by ksw2 · · Score: 2

    Okay, the first ten posts are crying about how illegal this is and how it shouldn't be on Slashdot. I'd just like to say STFU, it's interesting, compared to most of the crap that gets posted here. Most people can buy a cheap PIX from Ebay anyway, so the article is more interesting from a technical standpoint than anything else.

  58. Re:USA fired the first shot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You've got to be kidding. It's hardly significant which side fired the first shot, the fact remains that Japan had its BATTLE FLEET in American territory ready to strike. In light of this, suggesting that America should wait for Japan to be really super ready before commencing hostilities is a bit ridiculous.

  59. Re: LRP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    please get a shorter sig you spamming ass. i hate people bigass peacocktail sigs.

  60. This IS Warez by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2

    This has nothing to do with the DCMA or anything else, it's copyright infringement pure and simple. Cisco's code is NOT free, it is liscenced and the cost of that is included in the price of a firewall (in fact it is a lot more than the hardware). To download the software without a liscence is copyright infringiment no matter how you cut it.

  61. This is insightful? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My ass.

  62. Question on free firewalls by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2

    Ok, so this is illegal, no question about it. It's copyright infringement, pure and simple. Now, as many have pointed out, there are plenty of free alternatives that are basically just as good. After all, you don't get any support for this, so why not keep it legal.

    Now I looked at the links provided and I didn't see any firewall that has a feature I really want (the PIX doesn't ether yet): Layer-3 invisibility. Basically I want a firewall that appears invisible to devices on the network, and just filters traffic as it goes through.

    Does anyone know of a GPL firewall that does this? I'm mainly interested because I can't use NAT (I have servers), but I don't have enough IP addressess to break apart my network into an inside/outside config.

    1. Re:Question on free firewalls by vcbumg2 · · Score: 1

      Check out openbsd bridging and pf.... I had the same problem on a multi-site hosting NT box... It will do the trick.

      --

      projects @ http://spectechnologies.net

    2. Re:Question on free firewalls by efagerho · · Score: 1

      Huh, no firewall that does this? Have you ever tried IPFilter with any of the BSDs or pf for OpenBSD? What you want to do is run the firewall as a bridge, then you just filter on the incoming or outgoing interfaces. (With ipf, you can only filter on incoming data, but you'll find everything you need in each firewall's documentation...)

      And to all those people complaining about this being illegal. I can't think of any company thinking of buying a Cisco, but would then switch to a clone because it's possible. And to all those people telling you how to use a ipf/pf/iptables/ipchains/ipwhatever system for testing, it just ain't gonna teach you much about a PIX.

      I've been playing around with a few PIX boxes and if I had never used a Cisco product before (i.e. configured routers/switches, router access-lists, generally knowing IOS) I would have been quite clueless with a PIX. So you can teach yourself firewalling concepts with open source firewalls and the theory behind different protocols (which is mandatory knowledge for anyone configuring firewalls...). Also commercial firewalls really don't have any features not present in open source firewalls (except that configuring stuff on open source firewalls generally is more time consuming when some features aren't integrated, like VPNs...). Anyways if someone would throw a PIX in front of you and tell you to configure a firewall, I bet you wouldn't get the job done (in a reasonable time).

    3. Re:Question on free firewalls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, you basically want a switch? Can't you just forward ports through your NAT router to those servers that need that port? Like if 192.168.0.2 is an ftp server, forward anything on port 21 to that IP.

  63. Where's the failover cable plug? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Kind of hard to do failover without it.

  64. Sounds familiar by tansey · · Score: 0

    Yeah, last time I listened to something like this, I ended up being chased by a bunch of vogons. Thirty Altairan dollars a day....sure that's what they WANT you to believe.

  65. Re: LRP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the story is about CISCO, not LINUX you fucking lamer.. if i wanted a link to a linux routing project i would of ASKED for one.

    ps. your project sucks

  66. Cisco IOS is MUCH better.. by af_robot · · Score: 2

    I don't know much about PIX, but i've used a dozen of 1000,1500,1600, 2500, 2600 cisco routers and access servers.

    Cisco's networking setup is MUCH better, logical and *documented* (show me GOOD iptables documentation, anyone?!) that linux or *bsd.

    It took me several hours to implement very simple ip policy routing in linux, and it is still looks like more a hack..i did the same task on cisco router in 10 minutes.
    Setting traffic shapers, queue priorities and so on just a matter of minutes. And you have more networking features which linux have not got yet even with the cheap 500$ used 1005 cisco router.

    However, sometimes there are nasty bugs in cisco's IOS, but you can almost avoid it by using latest stable IOS release.

    1. Re:Cisco IOS is MUCH better.. by sedawkgrep · · Score: 2

      Unfortunately, PIX is very dissimilar to IOS. I personally detest the PIX syntax and the philosophy of "interface security levels".

      I must admit though, that I've never setup policy routing or other QoS features on a Pix.

      --
      Is that a salami in my pants or am I just happy to be me?
    2. Re:Cisco IOS is MUCH better.. by Yakko · · Score: 1
      I believe that IOS access lists are pretty good... they may even be "stateful" in a sense (it's been awhile since I've researched that)... but the main job of any router is one thing and one thing only: forward packets.

      I had a 7206 (with a poor NPE-150) with several hundred lines of extended access lists on it. It's a wonder things weren't really slow. That router is history now that we've moved labs and I got to build a new network.

      I'll agree with you that iptables's setup is rather obtuse. I'm battling that right now. I wish it were easier to properly set up a default-deny firewall and have stuff like DCC sends work straight away.

      However, sometimes there are nasty bugs in cisco's IOS, but you can almost avoid it by using latest stable IOS release.

      There are cases I've run into where the "latest stable IOS release" doesn't support the hardware I have in the chassis, so I had to use one of the EARLY RELEASE SOFTWARE versions in the train, or go back to a previous release train to get the hardware working.

      But yes, going to the latest RELEASE SOFTWARE in the train usually works.

      --

      --
      Me spell chucker work grate. Need grandma chicken.
  67. Hypocritical and a disgrace to /. visitors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I am appalled that this article was posted.



    By having this article on /., CmdrTaco, CowboyNeal and the rest are essentially condoning theft. That is, after all, what the article is about. Theft, plain and simple.



    It is amazingly hypocritical too. Just look at how the /. community reacts if some poor schmuck forgets to release the source code for GPL software? Where is the difference>



    Hopefully, the news wires won't pick up on this one. It would be an even bigger embarassment to the /. community to see stories like "/. condones theft".



    The story should be removed. It is immoral and wrong.



    I enjoy my time on /. and it is a source of pride to be part of this community. Until today. If these types of stories are going to become part of the /. norm, then I want nothing to do with it.



    The story should be pulled. It is an embarassment. Whoever made the decision to post it should be talked to. It was wrong.

    1. Re:Hypocritical and a disgrace to /. visitors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I enjoy my time on /. and it is a source of pride to be part of this community. Until today. If these types of stories are going to become part of the /. norm, then I want nothing to do with it."

      What is this? A gay pride march or something?

      It's hard to complain about closed source when you have the erect member of mediocrity lustily thrusting down your throat.

      Remind us to go a little deeper next time. That should shut you up.

    2. Re:Hypocritical and a disgrace to /. visitors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A typical response from a snivelling snot. Grow up.

    3. Re:Hypocritical and a disgrace to /. visitors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Geez, It's not really hypocritical unless someone were to download and try to commercially sell a few of CmdrTaco's programs or post a couple of pics of Timothy's kids elsewhere on the Net. Peace out!

  68. PULL THE MOVIE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think its shocking that Slashdot ran a story about Lord of the Rings.
    Don't you know that PEOPLE DIE in that movie.

    EVEN THE HERO KILLS PEOPLE.

    I mean its shocking that Slashdot would run a story and link to a movie that openly enourages people to kill other people.

    But this is qualitatively and quantatively very different from /. virtually advocating murder worth one life. In the same way that my underage drinking (which almost everyone does) is very different from advertising and promoting underage drinking.

    How can any movement to safeguard our rights be taken seriously with this sort of lunacy? Valenti et al will be rubbing their hands in glee. This is another victory for them - if one of the most popular advocates of not killing people is advertising kill movies, then that reflects very badly on the community as a whole.

  69. PIX 501 and 506 defeat the point of this anyhow by sjhwilkes · · Score: 1

    There are two low end PIX's now which only cost $400 and $900 US anyhow, so any justification for doing this has pretty much evaporated.

    If you're just using one for study purposes I don't have a big problem with it, but agree with prevailing sentiment that only the insane would put one into production.

  70. Re:Where could I find an Cisco 16MB PIX Flash card by wirzcat · · Score: 1

    Think about it. You got a intel chipset mobo running Cisco software off of flash. I know some cisco guys....this isn't rocket science. Running openbsd or linux and following prudent concepts will get you the same thing.

    Just because it says "Cisco PIX" doesn't mean it was hatched from a daemon's ass and is the best. At work, I use them. Great service and reliable performance. At home, openbsd.
    That compact openbsd idea sound like a good start.

  71. Because you would still have a PIX by williewang · · Score: 1

    I can think of exactly 0 people who like working on them. They pump traffic, sure, but not well enough for the pain-in-the-ass factor.

    To all the people finding this initial posting so terribly controversial, relax. This site is a glorified bbs, not an official newsletter for all the nerd community. The point is that the guts of the boxes are pretty simple. The huge price tag is for the proprietary IOS and support. If it's worth it to you, fine. But leave the little haxor monkey alone. 99% of the people--at least--on this page have done some pirating here and there. If you can't figure out that this is not legal and could land you in trouble if you throw it up somewhere visible, you should get at least 1-2 years for irretrievable stupidity.

  72. Stupid!!!! by FreeLinux · · Score: 5, Informative

    As stated before, this "hack" is piracy and therefore illegal. Furthermore it is a stupid waste of money.

    Why spend $800 for a amateurish, rigged up, pirated Pix when you can have the real thing for less. If what you really want is to learn about the Pix and its configuration simply hop on to eBay and buy the real thing. On eBay Pix 501s and 520s can be had for $400 and $500 respectively.

    1. Re:Stupid!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, using your fully-paid CCO login to download software from Cisco that they have given you access to is ILLEGAL.

      Welcome to FreeLinux!

      $ dc
      2
      2
      +
      p
      5

    2. Re:Stupid!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But remember that $500 likely doesn't include a software license. Those are non transferrable.

      So unless that $500 PIX is new in box, then you have to spend more money licensing it.

    3. Re:Stupid!!!! by Dark_Nova · · Score: 1

      This is AU$800 - about US$400, so the ebay PIXes aren't cheaper.

  73. Not quickly if ever by r6144 · · Score: 1

    I doubt there is any way for the editor to easily pull the story, and using raw SQL is so troublesome and so risky (for some /. editors) that they will try to avoid that if possible.

  74. Cisco Tech? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think most people have known, for a long time, that the PIX runs on generic PC hardware. Newer ones have a USB port documented as 'for future use'.

    What you pay for is the software. Yes, you get an expensive PC and with it you can get the support, replacement and other warranties mentioned in other threads. But the bulk of the investment is in the Finesse OS and associated functionality.
    Obtaining this illegally is theft, and that licence is a HUGE part of the cost.

    (BTW: I believe that you can order a 16MB Cisco PIX flash, blank, from Cisco as an upgrade to the older PIX520 releases. This would certainly not make this illegal, but would also almost certainly make the project FAR more expensive...)

    As to the OpenSource vs. Commercial firewall debate? Whatever your policy suggests works. My biggest personal beef with most OS firewalls is getting support for the ugly L7 stuff like H.323 that many customers want, and that in many cases I don't have the time to get set up on an OpenBSD pf based firewall. :)

  75. Watchguard was/is the same way by swb · · Score: 2

    Legal arguments aside, this could be done with upgrade kits for Watchguard Fireboxes back in the day when you could hardware upgrade a Firebox. The upgrade kit was primarily a flash memory drive that plugged into the IDE port. Grab a like motherboard, same model ethernet cards, plug in the flash IDE and you had a firebox.

    I haven't used the newer products (we moved to PIX), but I'd be real surprised if the new hardware didn't work the same way, although maybe they've decided to put some queer data in the BIOS flash that the firewall software checks.

    I think there's money in it for a firewall companies to market a "firewall kit" of software and optional flash drives for use on whatever boxes are handy.

    I'm sure they'd argue that it'd be too hard to support and would threaten the security by running on non-audited hardware (and it would kill off the high-margin hardware they sell, which would be the secret argument), but for a company willing to take a risk it might help them clean up in the low-end or large volume markets. It might be the perfect application for a purpose built BSD firewall distro. Yes, I know you can roll your own now, but there's significant advantages to buying pre-rolled kits.

    1. Re:Watchguard was/is the same way by matuscak · · Score: 1
      I think there's money in it for a firewall companies to market a "firewall kit" of software and optional flash drives for use on whatever boxes are handy.

      That would be the GnatBox. The GBflash in particular. See www.gnatbox.com

  76. Cracking down?? by tweakt · · Score: 2

    Sure they are...

    http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&it em =2048707620
    http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll? ViewItem&item =2048444062

    1. Re:Cracking down?? by knick · · Score: 1

      Gee, it seems that both of those auctions have been delete. How interesting..

      --dirt

    2. Re:Cracking down?? by ryanwright · · Score: 2

      You don't think so?
      Both of those links are invalid as of 8:30am PDT.

      Someone cracked down...

      --
      -Ryan, with the unoriginal sig
  77. OTHER FlashBased Firewalls by v77 · · Score: 1

    Are there howto's on setting up BSD or Linux based firewall using some kind of a flash device (to eliminate hd)??? I realize you can use a CDROM drive, but that's still moving parts. You can get 128meg flash disks now, any way to use that like this pix card does?

    1. Re:OTHER FlashBased Firewalls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      embsd.org, compactbsd, mybsd, thewall, etc. all are geared for this CF based use & use quite nice (and -compact-) hardware such as the Soekris Net4501 (www.soekris.com).

      Wow, build your own state of the art OpenBSD+pf solidstate firewall for ~$350!

  78. Where can I get that case? Front Exposed PCI bay!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That case is cool. With the exposed front PCI bay. His pictures don't do that part justice. One second the front is closed off then the next it has PCI bays. Did he attack it with his Dremmel or something?

  79. OK, but why would you really WANT to? by Malor · · Score: 5, Informative

    This has been mentioned above, but not very clearly. As far as I know, the PIX software also requires an activation key, which costs money. You might be able to get one from a warez utility, but it is an extra step, and it is illegal. Also note that Cisco charges extra for the ability to just secure shell into your firewall(!). Unless you cough up a whole bunch of extra money, you have to use TELNET to configure a FIREWALL. This is really lame.

    Further, the PIX just isn't a very good firewall.

    The hardware is well-built but incredibly underpowered. The one we have at work is only 200mhz. I don't know how far that will scale, but, personally, I don't think I'd want to be putting more than about 5 megabits through it. And Cisco charges about 12,000 dollars for the PIX.(!)

    The command syntax is really hard to figure out. It just makes no sense at all. The documentation on Cisco's site is excellent, but I always have to resort to cookbook examples, because I don't use it every day.

    The default configuration is 'allow all outbound traffic and all inbound replies'. It is very hard to change this. If you want a fairly secure network, you shouldn't allow direct outbound connections, but rather only through a proxy device of some kind. If your security policy requires outbound connection restrictions, this is really awkward to implement with the PIX.

    The PIX isn't a very good router, either. It doesn't support most of the 'real' IOS commands. You can do some routing with it, but it's not very flexible.

    I've worked with a lot of firewalls and have done a lot of firewalling, and in my opinion, Linux with iptables is about the best thing going. You will have to spend significant learning time to figure it out, as the documentation is not very good, but once you do, you can do pretty much anything with it. Linux has always been a great router, and with the introduction of iptables, became a great firewall too. If you don't want to build rules by hand, there's a program called 'fwbuilder' that gives you a Checkpoint-like GUI. FWBuilder also speaks OpenBSD's pf and I *think* Checkpoint's firewall language, but I'm not sure about that last.

    OpenBSD has a good reputation as a firewall. I used it at home for a couple years, but I have moved to Linux since then. The PF language is very clean and easy to read, and if you're just starting with firewalling, it can be a good first opensource firewall. However, there were big performance problems with OpenBSD's bridging firewall code in 3.0; it choked hard over about 25K connections, and past about 30 megabits it just froze up for random periods of time. Very frustrating. Linux on the same hardware (with the iptables bridging patch) handles over 60 megabits flawlessly. And going over 30k connections is trivial; you simply echo a large number into a variable in the /proc filesystem. I searched and searched and could NOT find any way to do this on BSD. It may exist, but I couldn't find it.

    They may have fixed the performance problems in more recent revs of OpenBSD. 3.0 was the first release of pf, and I threw it into a monster production environment based on the OpenBSD team's reputation. The later revs may be much better, but as of 3.0, Linux absolutely destroys OpenBSD as a firewall.

    There's one cool thing the PIX does that I haven't figured out how to duplicate manually. It has an 'established' command, which allows you to say: "If I open a command on port X, allow a return connection on port Y for a short period of time." This is useful, for example, for IRC, where you connect on port 6667 and an ident connection comes back in on port 113.

    I asked about this feature on the OpenBSD newsgroups, and got scoffed at... according to them, it's more secure to leave the port open all the time to everyone than just to allow return connections from a host to which you have connected and only for a short period of time. Frankly, I think that's just stupid. It's the typical apologist reaction... "that's a dumb feature to ask for because it's hard to do". They'll say it's stupid until someone takes the time to implement it, and then suddenly that's the only way to go and any system that doesn't do that is obviously broken.

    I haven't found that capability in the Linux iptables stuff either, FWIW. As far as I know, only the PIX does this, and I consider it a very useful feature. (you can sort of simulate it with some of the kernel modules for different protocols, but I haven't found a way to do an arbitrary set of ports).

    If you can live without the 'established' command, though, I'd probably, overall, recommend the Linux/FWBuilder combo. If you want to learn more about firewalling, OpenBSD's pf language is a nice simple way to start.

    And if you really want to spend money on a firewall, Checkpoint is a much better solution than the PIX. It has many enterprise-class features that the free alternatives lack, like good VPN support and great support for managing clusters of firewalls. The Nokia Checkpoint boxes are *really* cool; they are based on a custom BSD-derived kernel. They cost more than the PIX, but in my opinion are wildly better and well worth the extra. (when I last looked, the prices on the Nokia boxes were in the 20K+ range. They may have dropped since the dotcom blowup.) The administration is easy, you get the power of BSD, and the hardware is really well-built. Very, very cool boxes.

    1. Re:OK, but why would you really WANT to? by v77 · · Score: 1

      BSD usually ran IPFilter, which is an excellent firewall, and when OBSD dropped it, many people, like me for instance, dropped OBSD. PF was new, and still is, and isn't the same cozy IPFilter we've come to know and love.

      Your question about port X than Y: I think OBSD community was absolutely right. You're asking for esoteric features, which are very rarely used. Why would you want such an architecture, that creates such complexity? If people can randomly connect to 113, then it should be open all the time. Openning it for a little bit doesn't work. What if there is a congestion on the network? I understand any feature can find use, but it's bad practice to do so. Either provide 113 or don't. But time share thingy is too confusing. Why not just keep it open? It's more script kiddie defense than any real defense at all.

    2. Re:OK, but why would you really WANT to? by outlaw · · Score: 1

      Check out the 'recent' mod in the netfilter Patch-O-Matic... the newest version looks like it provides the feature you're looking for (I'm looking to do the same thing; open 113 after a connection on 25/6667)

    3. Re:OK, but why would you really WANT to? by NetJunkie · · Score: 3, Informative

      The PIX OS requires no activation key. You do need to purchase a key to enable 3DES for VPN. The DES functionality is free.

      You're right. It does allow direct connections. Why? Because it's a packet filter firewall, not a proxy server. Want a proxy server? Buy one. Don't buy the PIX.

      Correct again. The PIX is not a router. It's a firewall. I don't want my firewall to be a real smart router. It shouldn't. It should block packets like a good little firewall.

      As for speed, the different PIX models have different speeds. They have also rev'd up the speed. Sure, you bought a 200MHz model a while back, but my 515E is a 433MHz model. One of them does not cost $12K, I think we paid close to that for both of them to set up a failover cluster with the 3DES VPN accelerator and full 24x7x4 3-year warranty.

      The PIX is actually a very good firewall. It's not exactly like IOS, but it's close enough. It handles our site-to-site VPNs very well and the cluster support is VERY good.

    4. Re:OK, but why would you really WANT to? by sedawkgrep · · Score: 2

      I agree...

      However, this would in a multi-user environment. Opening an inbound port would require it to always be directed to the same machine.

      That would of course cause ident to either give incorrect information or fail outright. Although I've never used that feature w/ Pix, I assuming it creates a conduit back to the originator's IP...which would only make sense.

      Still, I don't see it as being particularly useful. I just wanted to point out that it might be useful, and simply opening an inbound port wouldn't equate to the same feature.

      sedawkgrep

      --
      Is that a salami in my pants or am I just happy to be me?
    5. Re:OK, but why would you really WANT to? by GC · · Score: 2

      "The PIX OS requires no activation key. You do need to purchase a key to enable 3DES for VPN. The DES functionality is free."

      You are partially correct. PIX, however, do require activation keys for all their functionality.

      The activation key (non-DES/3DES) comes preset in the 16Mb Flash card that you need to build this clone.

      Incidentally, you may be able to get some support as a purchase of a replacement flash card gives you a new Cisco S/N for your PIX (when purchased as an upgrade to an old 520 for instance).

      And last time I checked Cisco were issuing DES activation keys for free as long as you gave them a Cisco S/N, which you have on your 16Mb Flash Card.

    6. Re:OK, but why would you really WANT to? by autechre · · Score: 2


      Personally, I _want_ my ident server (which I'm forced to run only because of IRC) to return incorrect information. It's frankly none of their business.

      freshmeat has at least one ident server listed which will return a random string of characters every time, and I think that's what we're using on our (OpenBSD) gateway at home.

      --
      WMBC freeform/independent online radio.
    7. Re:OK, but why would you really WANT to? by m0rningstar · · Score: 1

      OK... I have a few beefs with this. (And. For reference. I do work for a Cisco reseller and have a couple of Cisco certs; I've installed a fair number of PIXEN)

      1) Throughput

      Yes. The PIX runs on relatively low powered hardware. Sounds like you have a PIX 515, which is a PPro 200. And which will firewall well over a T3. (Cisco quoted spec is 190Mpbs thru'put. I've not tested this, but I'd treat it as a marketing number.)

      The Finesse OS Kernel is small (latest rev shrank to just over 1.5 MB). And fast. It doesn't need raw horsepower to punch traffic.

      2) Price

      The 515 is both significantly cheaper now /and/ significantly more powerful. (515E). It's still not cheap by any stretch of the imagination, but it's not $12k for the low end any more. (See other posts on the 501, 506, etc)

      3) Outbound connections

      Erm. This is just another ACL with the latest versions (anything since 5.0) of the PIX. Not exactly rocket science.

      The old outbound/conduit syntax was, yes, complex and confusing. It's also been replaced with a standard ACL. (Almost. Regular masks, not wildcards.) ACLs are absolutely fundamental to Cisco, so if you have router familiarity you'd better understand them.

      3) Not a good router

      No. It's not. But then again -- it's NOT a router. It's a firewall. Why would I want my firewall to do all the general purpose commands?

      4) Extra charge for SSH

      Can you source this? All PIXen are now shipped with 56bit DES keys for free, and SSH support for free. (Yes. 56bit DES, not 128bit. Yes. This is less secure. Yes, it'd be nice to get 128bit for free, but that's also the level supported in the IPSec tunnels. It's $1k more for most PIXen for a 3DES key, much less on a 501)

      I will agree that there are some limitations and flaws in PIX. That they only NOW added groups and NTP support was stupid. But those have been replaced.

      As a couter argument: most homebuilt firewalls still have a full OS under them. Why do I want this? (And I realise this isn't universal, so please don't reply with links to all the stripped distros). I believe in a box doing what it's tasked to, not everything, and simplifying administration -- capital investment is depreceated, staffing isn't, so have each box easily understandable, know what it does and know everything it does, especially in a security environment.

    8. Re:OK, but why would you really WANT to? by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      $1k more for most PIXen for a 3DES key, much less on a 501

      Why, other than marketing? Does it take them so much computing power to generate this key that they have to rent a mainframe somewhere? :)

      Having a full box as a firewall/router has an advantage, you can arbitrarily upgrade it as needed. Some new whiz-bang VPN technology comes out, you just install it, no running back to Cisco for more expensive upgrades.

      As you said, one can install as little or as much as one needs. If you are in a security sensitive environment, then run the OS on read only media, and don't even install a hard disk, just lots of RAM for a ramdisk. Have the thing reboot every night if you are paranoid, and don't install any services facing the internet that would need patching (unless you need to), and you would rarely need to recreate the media due to security patches, since very very few security flaws are in the kernel filters themselves. Only one I can recall with iptables, the FTP RELATED bug, only affected certain users anyway, who were using that rule.

      My point is.... flexibility and freedom, at a trivial hardware cost, no lock-in, and performance that can easily match, or beat, Cisco offerings.

      Someone else mentioned a failover mode that was seamless with Cisco. If you need something like that, that only Cisco can provide, then by all means go Cisco, but for 99% of the people out there, there are very good alternatives.

      Cisco is a relic at this point, they are being commodized (is that a word?) into non-existance. The high end offerings are way overpriced, for example, several hundred dollars for a single GBIC for a fiber optic GB ethernet port, or $6000-$7000 for a blade of 5 or 6 copper gigabit ports for a Catalyst switch.... Those prices can't compete on the high end either, being 10X more expensive than commodity hardware is a killer, especially when the value you provide is nominal.

      I think Cisco's financials lately strongly support this too.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    9. Re:OK, but why would you really WANT to? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, now your comment is about as knee-jerk as they get; not only are you uninformed but you write as if you actually have a fair understanding of firewalls. Let's take it from the beginning:

      "As far as I know, the PIX software also requires an activation key, which costs money."

      Wrong. You need an activation key in order to activate the 3DES environment, otherwise this is not a requirement.

      "Also note that Cisco charges extra for the ability to just secure shell into your firewall(!)."

      Again, incorrect. You can use SSH with a *FREE* 56bit activation key from their website. 3DES requires the purchase of the 3DES activation key.

      "Unless you cough up a whole bunch of extra money, you have to use TELNET to configure a FIREWALL. This is really lame."

      Yep, you guessed it - wrong again. Like I pointed about above you can indeed enable ssh (des) with the free activation key provided on the Cisco website. If you decline to go this route you can either use the PDM (ssl-enabled web gui) or telnet, with telnet being an option *only* from an inside interface or via an IPSEC tunnel to the external int. How is that lame?

      "Further, the PIX just isn't a very good firewall."

      For some reason my browser didn't render the supporting text for this statement. Damn, I'm sure there's a lot of text I'm missing seeing how the rest of your post is articulate & well written.

      "The hardware is well-built but incredibly underpowered. The one we have at work is only 200mhz. I don't know how far that will scale, but, personally, I don't think I'd want to be putting more than about 5 megabits through it."

      Okay, now I'm getting seriously upset with the developers of the browser I'm using; now they've taken to replacing supporting factual statements with mindless conjecture. How can you seriously expect anyone to take you seriously when you haven't even performed rudimentary tests of your statement? I can guarantee you that your little P200Mhz can support 60MB+ of real-world traffic with several thousand concurrent connections. Wanna play with VPN tunnels, TACACS+/Radius Auth, Websense URL filtering? Then that 60MB+ number starts heading downhill, but that's to be expected.

      The command syntax is really hard to figure out. It just makes no sense at all.

      Okay, now I'm convinced you must be in cahoots with the developers responsible for the above-mentioned textual inaccuracies. I'm going forward with the assumption that since you appear to be an avid /. poster you are an articulate well qualified professional in an engineering field, so it can't be an utter lack of brians which is responsible for this dribble. I could see your statement being 1/10th true if you were referring to the PIX IOS v4.x or later since they did have some whacky command syntax which was mainly due to the PIXs heritage from the previous owner. That being said I have to state that in its current incarnation it is 95%+ exact to the standard router IOS command set, at least for the common routing/networking functionality. You must be from another planet not to recognize this (there I go again with my conspiracy theories...).

      The default configuration is 'allow all outbound traffic and all inbound replies'. It is very hard to change this.

      Okay, this is the first one you're semi-accurate on. When *not* using ACLs and only conduits this statement is correct. ACL functionality has been present for quite some time so this can be considered a non-issue. The default behaviour when ACLs are present is to deny all then permit selectively.

      If you want a fairly secure network, you shouldn't allow direct outbound connections, but rather only through a proxy device of some kind.

      This statement is open to further discussion in a more appropriate forum; you're being too vague for this to have a meaningful impact. Let me just say if you want true proxy functionality you shouldn't be using a PIX. Whilst the PIX does have "fixup" protocols for some common services it in no way should be considered a replacement for a real proxy firewall.

      If your security policy requires outbound connection restrictions, this is really awkward to implement with the PIX.

      How are ACLs awkward? I feel comfortable making the statement that the Cisco IOS routing/switching commandset is about as close to "industry standard" as you'll get, so it's only as awkward as your lack of technical knowledge implies.

      The PIX isn't a very good router, either. It doesn't support most of the 'real' IOS commands. You can do some routing with it, but it's not very flexible.

      Poor grammer aside, it's a firewall not a router. Almost everything you'd want a firewall to do, routing-wise, is there. Support for complex dynamic routing protocols is lacking but then again you should probably re-evaluate their use if following common security criteria when designing your network.

      The rest is basically offtopic so I'll refrain from commenting.

    10. Re:OK, but why would you really WANT to? by Malor · · Score: 1

      I think you misunderstand. This isn't "open port 113 from anywhere after any connection on port 6667", it's "allow (only!) the target of a 6667 connection to open port 113 back to the originating machine." I don't remember the default timeout, I think it's like 10 seconds.

      Why is this useful? Because irc servers that use ident wait until the connection fails to allow you in. I don't want the whole world hitting that ident port. I want to implicitly give that server permission by my connection attempt. And of course (this is in response to the other poster), I run a fake identd that just returns what I want it to return. I don't like identd itself, but I DO like to connect to irc servers very quickly, and with my normal 'username'. The only way I've found to do this is to open port 113 to everywhere. I prefer the PIX approach of opening a brief window after a connection attempt implicitly grants permission. Yes, I realize that this is imperfect security, but it's better than open-all-the-time-to-everyone.

    11. Re:OK, but why would you really WANT to? by Malor · · Score: 1

      Cool, thanks, I will do that!

    12. Re:OK, but why would you really WANT to? by sedawkgrep · · Score: 2

      Since identd would only return usernames for ports that are allocated, given the posted idea it would either report that the port was not in use, or give valid internal usernames out.

      Sometimes it might even show up as root.

      That's the point I was trying to make. ident sucks anyhow.

      --
      Is that a salami in my pants or am I just happy to be me?
    13. Re:OK, but why would you really WANT to? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The hardware is well-built but incredibly underpowered. The one we have at work is only 200mhz. I don't know how far that will scale, but, personally, I don't think I'd want to be putting more than about 5 megabits through it. And Cisco charges about 12,000 dollars for the PIX.(!)"

      I'm sorry, but I'm just gonna have to refute all of this.

      I ran a site supporting 500 users/servers behind the firewall on a 506 - at the time, it was a p166 with 64 meg of ram, I believe they changed that with the 506E - a number of VPN's, and Websense URL filtering. No, it wasn't 5 megabits (2MB wireless), but the load on it was negligible at any given time. The only time the load showed up, at ALL, was after turning on the URL filtering. It may be weak, but it can pump data. After all, with a 486 running Linux as a firewall, why shouldn't a P133 be able to do it faster? Not to mention when you move up into the higher end models, the power goes up very quickly - even the 515E, the next step up, is a PII-300 with a hardware VPN en/decryption card.

      "The documentation on Cisco's site is excellent, but I always have to resort to cookbook examples, because I don't use it every day."

      You know, I can say the same thing about IPTables. I just don't use it a lot, so I don't understand the syntax well. Must be crappy!

      "The default configuration is 'allow all outbound traffic and all inbound replies'. It is very hard to change this."

      Just plain wrong. The default configuration is "allow all connections across an interface, unless any (emphasizing the ANY) access-list is applied to the interface, at which point it is access-list first, then deny all". That's really not that hard to change:

      access-list acl_in permit ip 10.10.10.0 255.255.255.0 any
      access-group acl_in in interface inside

      Wow, those two lines, and suddenly the default policy is "deny all, unless the ACL permits it". Real tough.

      "If your security policy requires outbound connection restrictions, this is really awkward to implement with the PIX."

      Again, another tough one:

      access-list acl_in permit ip host any eq 80
      access-list acl_in deny ip any

      Now, only your proxy server can create outbound connections on port 80. So very, very tough.

      "The PIX isn't a very good router, either. It doesn't support most of the 'real' IOS commands. You can do some routing with it, but it's not very flexible."

      It's not a router. Buy/make a router if you want a router. Part of the meaning of "hardware firewall" is that it's a hardware device that does ONLY firewalling. The only use of route commands on a PIX is to determine the next hop as well as how it talks to various subnets on its interfaces. Don't ever expect it to allow two subnets on the same interface to talk simply by making it the default gateway for devices on either end. Again, it's not a router - read the back of the box next time.

      "You will have to spend significant learning time to figure it out, as the documentation is not very good, but once you do, you can do pretty much anything with it." /me gazes at his 300 page Cisco documentation packet for the PIX.

      You're right, I don't see a 300 page documentation manual for IPChains/IPTables put together by the vendor, with half a dozen configuration examples and a full command and parameters listing anywhere. The documentation is pretty poor.

      "There's one cool thing the PIX does that I haven't figured out how to duplicate manually. It has an 'established' command, which allows you to say: "If I open a command on port X, allow a return connection on port Y for a short period of time." This is useful, for example, for IRC, where you connect on port 6667 and an ident connection comes back in on port 113."

      It's called a reflexive (or sometimes reflective, depending on the vendor/documentation) access-list. It exists on Cisco routers as well as even *gasp* SMC and Linksys router/firewalls. The SMC Barricade calls it "trigger" ports, forget what Linksys calls it. No idea where it is in IPTables, but I'd think if Linksys has the feature, IPTables does too :)

      "And if you really want to spend money on a firewall, Checkpoint is a much better solution than the PIX."

      One of the best part about Cisco and their PIX product is that they acknowledge and fix problems. Checkpoint for the longest time would NOT log IP fragments other than the first fragment. Some DDoS program that thankfully didn't take off chose to use these kinds of packets as inter-node communication. Checkpoint denied the problem existed for ages. Every problem I've seen reported about the PIX has been addressed very timely, even if it's later found to be debunked as a problem. Imagine that, proprietary company with "open" policies.

      There's lots of areas the PIX lacks, like say, being able to put a custom tag in front of log messages. However, your criticisms all seem to stem simply from your incomprehension, either on purpose or thru the common technology-oriented laziness we all seem to be inflicted with. Please, do yourself a favor and read up on these problems before simply dismissing them as long-standing issues when they're merely a by-product of a lack of familiarity.

      Rob Nelson
      ronelson@vt.edu

  80. Re:Stupid question ... Intelligent answer by libertarian · · Score: 1

    Last I checked 3DES VPN capability was doable with Linux. Also, current versions of IPTables can be configured to use state information in making packet forwarding decisions--"stateful inspection".

  81. PIX is not good for large networks by mrnick · · Score: 1

    I have been in network security for about 9 years now and I believe that PIX fails when you go over 2 or 3 networks. The problem is that you have to define security levels to each network. Though this may sound straight forward at first glance it does not work in the world of corporate security. You need to have a much more definable network security policy.

    Pix would be best used as a border firewall with maybe 3 interfaces (Internet, internal, and Sync). Although this is still a packet filter and does not take state into considiration, but that's another story...

    I would be interested in trying this with a Nokia box running Check Point. If you look at an IP440 it is clearly just a PC running IPSO (BSD diriv).

    Nick Powers

    --

    Encryption: I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to encrypt it...
    1. Re:PIX is not good for large networks by hpavc · · Score: 1

      doesnt he newer PIX os handle this enough with its snazzy access objects?

      No offense, but how do you normally configure the PIX ... via telnet or with a tool? The tools out there are quite robust for multiple pixs, networks, policies, and so on.

      --
      members are seeing something, your seeing an ad
  82. This isn't illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This isn't illegal

    Well, maybe it is in the US with your pseudo-democracy run by war-mongering fools bent over -receiving the proverbial reaming from corporate america.

    However, in free countries - you buy it, you own it - you can do whatver the fuck you want with it.

  83. It is unethical and immoral by fmaxwell · · Score: 2

    Because it is illegal and you will go to jail for stealing CISCO's intellectual property.

    More important than the legality are the ethical aspects of any given act. It's illegal to circumvent copy protection (according to the the DMCA) even if it is to make a copy for your own use. But doing so is not unethical.

    In this case, we have an act that is both illegal and unethical.

  84. Piracy? Theft? by Evanrude · · Score: 2

    This article never mentions pirating the Cisco IOS. Anyone who has ever purchased a Cisco product gets a login that gives them access to *any* piece of Cisco hardware's flash/boot software. Cisco makes it available. Granted, if you don't have the access then it becomes piracy.

    Secondly, the article never actually mentions stealing a PIX flash card. Someone that legitimately owns an older PIX could, after the warranty/support/etc had expired, remove the flash card from their PIX and "upgrade" the hardware for a little nicer firewall. If you acquire the flash card through illegal means, however, then that would be stealing. Cisco might even sell them! (doubtful, but I don't have time to check it out)

    As far as intellectual property goes...you aren't reverse engineering anything. Everyone knows the Cisco PIX is just a PC with a floppy drive and some flash memory. It even tells you that when you boot a real PIX.
    All you are doing is constructing your own.

    --

    ~.Evanrude
    1. Re:Piracy? Theft? by vanguard · · Score: 2

      I work at cisco, I promise you they don't want you to download software that you haven't paid for. I'll admit that our systems let you do that. That's because they care more about customer sastisfaction than the money they lost from downloads. (Besides, companys don't pirate as badly as individuals.)

      Anyway, the information you're spreading is incorrect. Just because you can download it doesn't mean you're entitled to it.

      Vanguard

      --
      That which does not kill me only makes me whinier
    2. Re:Piracy? Theft? by Evanrude · · Score: 2

      I totally understand. I had a conversation about this with a friend of mine that deals with Cisco a lot more than I do. (I figured it was illegal to begin with, just playing devil's advocate)

      --

      ~.Evanrude
  85. Chic != Chick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Chic" is a fashion/style term pronounced the same as the word "shiek."

    Chick is, well, a hottie. ;)

    As for the definition of "chic", I'm not going to put it into words for fear of slightly missing the point and being raped by 10,000 trolls. ;)

    Check it out..

    Are you a Chic Geek?
    http://www.geekchic.com/michael.htm

    E

    Geeks and fashion, what is this world coming to?

  86. The IBM PC by gilesjuk · · Score: 1

    It was probably illegal and unethical for Compaq to of reverse engineered the IBM PC BIOS but they did and as a result it gave birth to industry we know today. Perhaps those dumb politicians creating all these anti this that and the other laws should remember that.

  87. Is it not possible to do this legally in the US? by BobMcD · · Score: 1

    I guess I don't understand the ins-and-outs of this, but could you not buy the software and skip the hardware? That alone would save quite a bit of cash, and just might be legal (but almost certainly outside of your average EULA). Plus, you could install a replacement NIC for about $10, after a quick trip to Wal-Mart... I'd rather use a non-desktop OS as a security device wherever possible. There are risks to everything, but as Windows demonstrates, the more available you are the more you get hacked. Wouldn't Cisco have to be less 'hack-bait' than Linux? (I'm not even going to ask about Windows) I have a question about the story though, where the heck does the flash card go?

  88. Bridge mode firewalls by rdunnell · · Score: 1
    There are quite a few firewalls that will run in bridge mode (i.e. with no IP). It will not be completely transparent as it will still present MAC address etc but it should not be visible above layer 2.

    There is a little bit of theory behind it because the firewall has to work "backwards." You almost have to accept all packets in, and then enforce security as they are forwarded outbound. This is not a problem with most firewalls that can be coaxed into bridge mode as they allow you to either specify direction (pf, ipf) or enforce the policy on all interfaces in either and/or only in user specified direction anyway (firewall-1)

    OpenBSD and whichever firewall you wish to run on it support it reasonably well. I am pretty sure you could follow an approximation of those instructions for Linux.

    Try here at daemonnews.org for a link on how to do it with openbsd.

    There are also commercial firewalls that support it, including Sun Sunscreen and Check Point Firewall-1 NG (only on their new Linux platform at the moment, but their other platforms may support it soon as well).

  89. Nothing new here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do a search for "frankenpix" on google. This has been done before.

  90. I sent this email to Timothy by vanguard · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I work at Cisco, things are tough right now. The company is making money but did you know that they haven't given raises to their employees in two years? Did you know that plan on going at least one more before they give out a raise?

    Did you know that they have cut promotions to 3% per year? I'll do that math for you. As a Cisco employee you can expect a promotion every 33 years. Not that it matters because if you do get promoted all you get are stock options with no raise.

    Did you know that they have their "active management" guns blaring at full speed? This means that the managers are forced to cut 5% of their staff every quarter. (In fairness, they seem to actually cut less than that). However, they have certainly reduced their staff by over 20% in the past two years. There aren't any slackers left at the company.

    Thank you for handing out information regarding how to steal our products.

    Vanguard
    --------------------

    I understand that some of have it even worse. Some of you are not employed at all. I feel for you.

    --
    That which does not kill me only makes me whinier
    1. Re:I sent this email to Timothy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Note: I'm assuming that you are bitter about this, so forgive me if you are actually thanking someone. But really, come on! Nobody is going to use this information to implement a solution like this in the corporate space - at least not one that would prevent them from purchasing a real Cisco product. Don't start blaming the economics of your situation on external events that are *perceived* as a threat to Cisco's intellectual property.

      If I were you guys, I'd be more worried about the fact that you can now buy a Firewall/VPN/NAT device at CompUSA for under $200, and that the companies that are selling these devices are actually delivering support on them, without requiring companies to sign some stupid support contract.

      kordless

    2. Re:I sent this email to Timothy by vanguard · · Score: 2

      Bitter, well that's a little strong. I'm mostly just trying to get people (Timothy) to understand the impact of stealing. As for your comments on the business model, I agree completely. Even with the employee discount I sometimes buy an SMC or linksys products for my house. Cisco really shines when you need support

      In my house, downtime isn't expensive therefore my equipment can be cheap. If your business is the same then you can also buy cheap stuff.

      As for requiring a support contract, yeah I see your point there too. Our support is very good and it costs more. That's true with most companys in the "enterprise" space.

      --
      That which does not kill me only makes me whinier
    3. Re:I sent this email to Timothy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you dont get promoted then find another job asshole.... Dont cry to me that Cisco isnt making money, at least you are getting paid fuckface.

  91. Question by Enlightened_0ne · · Score: 1

    Couln't we use a PCMCIA adapter and a 16mb compactflash card instead of the ISA flash thingie?

  92. Re:Cracking down?? - they are there! by Enlightened_0ne · · Score: 1

    No, they are not deleted. just remove the space by the = sign. for the link challenged, use these

    http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&it em =2048444062

    http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&it em =2048707620

  93. actually the Compaq bios was done legally by rdunnell · · Score: 1

    IBM published the source code, its inputs/outputs (functionality requirements) were documented by one group of developers, and new code to produce the same functionality written by people who had never seen the old code, and thus was legally reverse engineered.

  94. This ain't illegal. by br0ken+by+design · · Score: 1

    Nothing about that article is remotely illegal, as he is simply describing how one would make a box using Cisco software.

    I can publish a page on how to crack software, convert an AR-15 to an M-16, make meth, pick locks, launch dead babies out of catapults, and even have sex with dolphins, and none of that would be illegal, because I have the right to say pretty much anything I damn well please.
    (Not that publishing some of those things is a good idea...unless you like feds showing up at your door.)

    Talking about an illegal act isn't illegal (yet)...DOING it is.
    There is absolutely no reason to pull this article...it's not as if the author is hosting IOS files.

    :wq

    --
    One ring to rule them all. The (_O_) in Goatse.cx
  95. Re:USA fired the first shot by Qrlx · · Score: 2

    It's hardly significant which side fired the first shot

    To Greedo, tell that!
    -- Yoda

  96. Could someone explain the controversy? by phr2 · · Score: 2
    Maybe I'm missing something but I don't understand what all the ranting about piracy is about. Could someone explain, nice and simple for those of us who are slow on the uptake, exactly what is getting pirated here? If the answer is "Cisco software", exactly where is it coming from and precisely where does the infringement take place?

    I read the linked page as how to build a PIX-like firewall by slapping some PC parts together and adding a legally-acquired Cisco flash card containing the software. Am I confused about the nature of the flash card? I saw it as something like noticing you could buy Macintosh roms out of an Apple repair parts catalog, and then writing a page saying "Build your own Macintosh clone by putting some standard hardware together and adding Mac roms that you buy from Apple". Sure, you've possibly annoyed Apple by avoiding paying a lot more for a real Mac, but as long as you get the roms legally, where is the piracy? You're not copying the roms, you're getting legitimate ones. They're even still legitimate if you get them on a secondary market like from a trashed motherboard.

    If all you want to do is run an OS from a flash disk on a PC, you can get a 16 MB CF card for under $20 and a CF to IDE adapter for another $20 or so. So I figured that the $400 for the PIX flash card has to mostly be going towards acquiring the software legally. Am I misreading the article?

    1. Re:Could someone explain the controversy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You misread the "article". $400 is about a third of the list for the flash card. And the flash card is sold for use in the PIX. That's the license that accompanies the software on the flash card. The "article" also says that you can obtain PIX OS off of CCO or from "your nearest Cisco warez monkey". If you don't own a PIX your are not entitled to download the PIX OS even with a CCO account. So the "article" is really about ripping off a vendor. Go Slashdot! Don't worry. The flash cards are serialized so Cisco will eventually buy a couple of these and figure this out. Then they will put the screws to the folks who are selling them and make an example out of them. Peace out!

  97. Right!!@! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok do you honestly believe that just because you can take it, that it should be free, and because its not a tangible object, you commited no crime? "I could plot and execute a bank robbery without getting caught, I can take all the money in the bank, that money should be free damn it." "I can pilfer from a jewlery store without getting caught, its only metal, it should be free." Notice a trend here? I certainly do, its a mentality that will eventually lead to the degredation of civilized society. Do you actually write software? Do you? Do you sit there for hours behind a keyboard with your favorite compiler and development environment on your overworked computer? Do you go through grueling hours of bug tracking and testing? Gee, how do you support yourself if someone cracks the software you spent months developing and testing and puts it on their ftp for the whole world and then some to download? Why would I want to buy it if I can get it for free? ^_O

  98. Re: Cisco vs. FreeSCO, etc. by King_TJ · · Score: 2

    Yeah, I'm in complete agreement with your accessment: Hacking together a Cisco PIX clone is going to offer you nothing.

    Despite all the flaming of Slashdot for linking to this article, though, I think there's another reason for it besides the obvious. The point I got from it is "Cisco firewalls are really just 486DX computers in a pretty rack-mount case, with some proprietary firmware loaded in them."

    Not that I didn't already know this. My work got a Cisco PIX, years ago, for free. (We initially purchased a Windows NT based software firewall product that was bought out by Cisco, and discontinued shortly afterwards. Since there were still 500 or so active users of the NT based product out there - Cisco just sent all of us free PIX's to get us switched over.) When I first examined it, I though "Man - no wonder they can afford to give these out for free! There's not much to it!" I was blown away when I saw their retail price for one.

    I think many folks still view the Cisco firewalls as some sort of technologically superior product with costly parts inside. They're not - and the sooner people realize that, the sooner they can start feeling comfortable running a free Linux or BSD based firewall solution on a standard PC.

  99. Cisco hardware is slow by lanner · · Score: 3, Informative


    I own a PIX 506 box and have worked on the 515 and 525 as well.

    Both the PIX 506 and 515 use an Intel socket 7 200Mhz MMX processor without a cooling fan, they just have a heat sink. The system board is just an Intel, nothing special there. PIX expansion slots are PCI slots. The Ethernet interfaces use Intel eepro i82557 (or was it i82559?) chips, just like your Intel NIC in your desktop. Everything is really standard, except for the software that runs on the box.

    For people who know Cisco hardware, they seem to recognize that the PIX series of firewalls are far faster than say a 3600 series router, or any of the older Cisco hardware. The PIX firewalls were acquired by Cisco when they bought Network Translation. Reference;
    http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/146/p ressroom/199 5/oct95/242.html

    So when you are buying that $4000 3640 with 128MB of RAM to handle the 100K or so of Internet BGP routes, you are buying something with the processing power of an Pentium computer or less.

    Here are some facts on the Cisco 3600 series;

    3620 64MB RAM maximum, 80Mhz RISC processor
    3640 128MB RAM maximum, 100Mhz RISC processor
    3660 256MB RAM maximum, 225Mhz RISC processor

    One of the major considerations for Cisco is that their equipment has to be really stable and heat tolerant. People love to treat Cisco hardware like old telco hardware and keep it out in a barn and stuff, in the damp air, with a bunch of dust, whatever. We should all know how Intel processors are in regards to heat. But even an old 200Mhz Intel MMX processor can run without a cooling fan.

    Cisco router hardware, in general, is really slow and sucks for processor speed. Juniper has mopped Cisco all over the floor in the core Internet market in the last few years because of port density, processing speed, and packet forwarding latency. In comparison, you look at a Juniper M40 versus a Cisco 12012, and the 12012 looks like a huge POS, and I don't mean packet over Sonet.

    One of the things about the Juniper routers is that they use Intel processors and SDRAM -- not much special there. The hardware is all completely custom, but they choose to ditch the Motorola and IBM processors for Intel. Packet forwarding processors are totally different than the core processors that we are talking about here, so I will leave them out for the most part. Still, Cisco uses a lot of off the shelf stuff in their routers and companies like Juniper have manufactured their own or applied existing stuff better to get the wire speed forwarding rates on all interfaces, with a backplane speed that is greater than the sum of all possible interfaces on a router.

    Cisco does not really see themselves as a hardware manufacture, but instead as a software company. However, if they do not shape up and start making some really good hardware, they are going to get kicked out by Juniper as they start to climb down the ladder and come out with smaller more affordable boxes and spread out from their core and big-box offerings (think M-5).

    Lately Cisco has released a few good new hardware. The 10000 series aggregation boxes can mux Sonet down to fractional DS1s, which is pretty hot, but these boxes are really hard to use these days because of the serious downturn in the market and the fact that a lot of DS1 customers have gone away. Old 7513s that ISPs have in stock with fractional PA-2T3s work fine.

    In switches, Cisco has come out with the 3500XL and 3550XL switches, which are really great.

    But most people out there have 2600s and 3600s. There are a lot of 2500s still in use too. Some things are starting to hurt Cisco though. It can take a minute or two for all of those BGP routes to get filtered out when interfaces flap. Cisco does not even offer any kind of SSH2 capability with ANY of their routers (to my knowledge), they only support SSH1 on special IOS versions and platforms. I really wonder if these routers, with their slow processors, can handle new stuff.

    I wonder how this will effect an IP6 roll out. I remember working on some 3600s and IP6 some time back. They had issues, but I understand that Cisco has worked a lot of those out.

    Oh well.

    The moral of the story is that Cisco hardware is kind of slow and it shows. On the other hand, it usually gets the job done.

    I need to go back to finding myself a job. Posting on Slashdot ain't paying the rent.

    Anyone out there have a Juniper Olive image? I would not mind having one of those in my lab.

  100. Re: Pull the story??? You miss the point! by King_TJ · · Score: 2

    I already mentioned it in another reply on this topic, but here's the deal:

    You people assuming that the only purpose of linking to this story is to promote stealing Cisco's product are mistaken!

    There are many folks out there who still believe a Cisco firewall product is somehow technically superior to most others. These are the same people who insist on blowing thousands of dollars on something like a PIX, and meanwhile, won't even consider a freeware solution running on an older PC.

    The fact that someone has completely disassembled a PIX, shown you what's really inside one, and proceeded to build a "replica" the way he did proves a point. Hardware-wise, at least, you're likely better off (not *worse off*), using an old Pentium-based system to run something like FreeSCO, IP-Cop, Smoothwall GPL, or you-name-it.

    It all comes down to this: Spend $12,000+ to legally run Cisco's proprietary firmware on a 486DX in a pretty rackmount case, or recycle your existing junk PCs with open-source alternatives at pretty much $0 cost. There's nothing else "magical" in the PIX box, folks.

  101. Neo-McCarthyism by Gameboy70 · · Score: 1

    And yes, I do consider my MP3 use to be wrong

    Clearly you don't. Your handwringing relfects the mentality of a spousal abuser: "Yeah, I know I shouldn't beat my wife, but at least I feel like shit about it, so every now and then I might still get carried away."

    Piracy is the Red Scare if the Information Age. If you really thought "pirating" MP3s was downloading Communism, and if you really thought it was wrong, you wouldn't do it.

    The reason you do it is because your instincts haven't caught up with the propaganda of our media cartels. After all, if it were really stealing, would tens of millions of Americans openly download MP3s, burn overpriced (per FTC ruling) CDs for friends, and not think twice about it, even openly discussing it with their friends? When's the last time you heard someone openly discuss the last item he or she shoplifted in a store?

    The sense of guilt doesn't carry over because people instinctively know that with CDs, like bottled water, they're paying for the media, not the content. They know without having to be told by the RIAA, and in spite of the RIAA, that digital content has no a priori value; and while some markup is permissible, $17.95 is a scandal. Or to put it another way:

    I'll buy these songs if they release the single but I don't want an album of pricey crap because there's one song on it I like - I can't wait for services where a comprehensive list of songs can be bought at a reasonable price, individually.

  102. old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I built my first PIX about 3 years ago using this method. Now someone had to go let the cat out of the bag, thanks...

    Cisco knows this is possible anyway, but never did anything about it because people weren't doing it on a large scale. But now since this article has been published, expect some new methods of making this so it won't work.

    Not to mention, it's illegal. If you're using the unit to practice on and gain experience with the platform, then that's a different story (even though it's still illegal). But if you stick it in a production environment, you're dumb.

  103. Re:Oh please! Quit with the smarmy outrage. by m0rningstar · · Score: 1

    In answer to the 'can't afford a full PIX' several people have already posted the answer to this:

    PIX 501. 10 users max, sure. 2 interfaces max. But they're cheap and don't involve pirating the licence.

  104. What about OpenBSD as a Cisco alternative? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A friend and I were considering writing a book (or at least a full-featured how-to) on how to assemble, install and configure an OpenBSD box that could act as the primary router/firewall for corporate offices.

    If you haven't looked into OpenBSD as a viable solution for your offices' router/firewall needs, you should. OpenBSD is ultra secure, has tons of tools that allow you to manage the flow of data on your network, and can run circles around a Cisco given that it is running on a fairly decent machine.

    The hardest part about setting the box up would probably be installing the OS and getting used to the UNIX command line environment (for those of you that don't do UNIX).

    kordless

    TextPad's spell checker wanted to change "Cisco" to "Crisco"....

  105. I Agree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I completely agree. You should also register scriptslashkiddiedot.org
    and make a sarcastic website!
    -James

  106. Re:Cracking down?? - they are there! by jroysdon · · Score: 1

    That's ok, they won't be for long. I've reported them to Cisco's legal department and eBays DCMA contact. This is clearly illegal activity pirating Cisco's life blood.

  107. And John C. couldn't even afford a DVD player.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Yeh cry me a river... Your CEO just got the 7 VCR's on his boat swapped out of DVD players..... Yes thats right 7. So things may be leen for you, but don't run around crying and pointing fingers at everyone.

    Anyway, this whole article is BS. That cisco 16 MB flash card (and this is an empty flash card, thats where the whole piracy thing comes in) costs between $700 and 800 USD!

    http://www.ibuyernet.com/prod~id~500939~CISCO_PI X- FLASH-16MB=.html

    So the title of the article should be "Build a Cisco PIX for $1,000"... $400 to play with something like that... Maby... $1000 hummmm....

  108. 16mb Flash - US$688 is cheapest online price by jroysdon · · Score: 1

    As others have said, why hack together this box when you can get a PIX 501 or 506 for less than or equal to the cost of the 16mb flash part, and you'd be legal. Plenty of eBay Buy-It-Nows for $439.

    Second, I did a search on PIX-FLASH-16MB= (Cisco part number for the required 16mb flash), and couldn't find it for less than US$688 using Nextag.

  109. And you wonder why you are unemployed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can't even stay on the topic of PIX in your rambling reply. Blame Cisco for BGP route flapping. Yeah. Why do you need SSH v2 in a router that you have telnetted to? What does v2 buy you that a maintained and fully patched v1.5 implementation does not? BTW, SSH v1.5 is supported on every Cisco router that has a DES license. Errors, errors, and more errors.

    1. Re:And you wonder why you are unemployed? by haruchai · · Score: 1

      Because you no longer want to rely on telnet?
      And remember that "maintaining" Cisco devices means loading a new IOS image and rebooting - at least until they get module support in their NextGen IOS, or whatever they choose to call it.

      Cisco may be the 800-pound gorilla of the networking world but, overall, they are behind the curve when it comes to both hardware and software technology.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
  110. Why Cisco? by Ogerman · · Score: 2

    I can understand where Cisco might have a market in really huge routers that are beyond what PC architecture can handle, but it seems the vast majority of their product line is equalled or even bested by a well built PC running Linux / netfilter. Why would anyone want to build an cheap knock-off of an inferior, proprietary design? And illegal to boot! (pun intended). If you want technilogical freedom, use free technology. Somebody should start marketing linux-based routers and firewalls and use a large percentage of the profits to further the iptables / netfilter project.

    1. Re:Why Cisco? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because by the time your Linux or BSD based friend comes with a product that matches Cisco's support levels, it'w just as expensive.

      You just don't understand do you, Cisco is not expensive because of the hardware or even the software itself, but because there is an organisation behind it that has commited itself to solving issues people have with it. No matter how much one likes the opensource world, and no matter how well they perform, there is _NO_ commitment....

  111. Nick hasn't looked at a PIX in 5 years... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's obvious from the post that "Nick" hasn't looked at a PIX in the last 5 years. It's a stateful firewall with support for more real appliactions than any other appliance firewall on the market. It supports up to 10 interfaces in the currently shipping code. PIX was also the first appliance firewall to ship with 100 mbps and 1000 mbps interfaces. Come on Nick. Try to stay informed. Peace out!

  112. Geez. King_TJ. I can smell that from here! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow. RouterMonkey disassembled a PIX and did the world a great service. B.S. He threw up a page that shows how to clone a vendors product and break the license agreement. Duh. Peace out!

  113. Re:This is illegal Br0ken. by vonoech · · Score: 1

    Cisco Software that he obtained and is using without a software license. If I go to your house, climb the pole outside, and start using your phone service to make long distance calls is that illegal? Peace out!

    --
    "I'll be better when I'm older"
  114. The Calculator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Calculator.app can convert currencies
    The exchange rate can be updated on-line too

  115. Cisco PIX 501 by metoc · · Score: 1

    What a bargain when you can by a genuine Cisco PIX 501 for less.

    1. Re:Cisco PIX 501 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but a 501 has a AMD 133 processor and a tiny bit of ram. This thing running up to 700 mhz is double a 506e in power (300mhz celeron? and they run 1300.00 US)

  116. Cisco Pix... Right to use? by telemonster · · Score: 1

    Not that I am blessing the practice of pirating firmware code from the Pix, but there is one issue. I looked into doing this a while ago just to play with the Pix. I've heard horrible stories about how bad it's logging is, and how it is a firewall to avoid. I wanted to check it out for myself. However, the card with the flash memory contains a serial number prom which is required to execute the Pix code. When you buy that card, you are buying a serial number 2nd hand that is required by the Pix code to execute (from my understanding). Obviously these cards are coming out of Pix firewalls. I realize that some might be from upgrades, and that could nullify the argument. But since these serial numbered flash cards are required and are most likely pulls from failed boxes, wouldn't that mean the number of "pirated" pix firewalls will never exceed the number of legit pix firewalls that were sold (until someone hacks the firmware to load from a standard IDE disk or IDE sandisk, it wouldn't boot when I rawrited it to a sandisk). Not something Cisco really needs to worry about as the number of flash cards with serial proms is probably limited.

    --
    Southeastern Virginia REPRESENT!
  117. Linux vs Cisco at linuxjournal.com by haruchai · · Score: 1
    Okay, this isn't about the PIX but, here's a review about a Linux-based router
    http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=5846

    The paper edition of that issue, August 2002,its 100th issue also discusses how to build a Linux router using PC parts and the LRP distribution.

    While it gives numbers for the Linux configurations, it doesn't provide a head to head networking comparison with the Cisco 2620. On another note, I've been told that Cisco IOS could be headed for deep trouble if they don't change their development strategy - they mostly use microcode - VERY difficult to write and troubleshoot.
    That may be why their products are so expensive ;)

    --
    Pain is merely failure leaving the body
  118. Re: Pull the story??? You miss the point! by vonoech · · Score: 1

    If /. doesn't put stories like this up here (so people at Cisco can look at them and complain) then who would look at /.?

    --
    "I'll be better when I'm older"
  119. I dunno... by phr2 · · Score: 2

    I can't see anyone paying $400 for a 16 MB flash card unless it included some kind of software license. As for $400 being 1/3 the list price, that's unpersuasive. Paying 1/3 the list price for an older piece of equipment that was heavily discounted to begin with doesn't sound like that great a deal.

  120. The pix license by mindstrm · · Score: 2

    says you can only use it on cisco's hardware.

    Everyone is freaking out too much... the only illegal thing in this process is if someone is selling copyrighted hardware.
    Re-selling cisco flashcards is legal... first-sale doctrine and all that.

    Just like Sun.. they act like they MUST know of all their big hardware in the world, where it is, who has it.. but in reality, you don't need sun's permission to buy a second hand server.

  121. PIx license is part of the pix flash. by zin · · Score: 1

    I work with Pix firewalls everyday. Infact I had recently upgraded a 520 from a 2 meg flash card to a 16 meg flash card. When installing the PixOS on your machine or Pix it was ask you if want to add another activation code (for the number of connections, URL filter, FA or other stuff.) This activation code is derived from the Serial number of your Pix (4XXXXXXXX), which is burned into the Pix ISA Flash card, or flash chip depending on your model. So you need this code to install and run your pix firewall. In reality you are really taking the only (identifiable/trackable) part of the pix within the flash card. I am sure Cisco isn't happy about it, but at least you gotta buy it from them. It's probaly the worst storage / price ratio on the planet too 16meg/~400bux. :)
    Anyhow thats serial and activation code are the most important part of that pix. Now if someone could clone that flash card, just about anyone could get a pix serial/activation code (easily obtainable from another real pix) and build their own free pix, without paying cisco a dime.

    Disclaimer: I love cisco and think their equipment and service is worth every dime my employer pays for it :)

    --
    -ZiN-
  122. Copy software is NICE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Every decent person who prays for GOD and follow the divine laws of obey knows that copying software is a GOOD thing. It's widespread that GOD gives a MASTURBATION to someone in the universe when a software is copied. Indeed, when an OPEN SOURCE software is copied someone gets a masturbation with his/her right blessed hand, while when a WAREZ software is copied someone else needs to download a PR0N with KAZAA to have the vertical smile.

    Think about THAT the next time you use your PIRATED microsoft SOFTIMAGE copy!

  123. Steal your product? Wake the fsck up! by Zeddicus_Z · · Score: 2

    "Thank you for handing out information regarding how to steal our products."

    Steal your products? I think you need to relearn the meaning of "steal". Cisco sells network hardware. They compete with other companies that sell network hardware. Cisco's having a hard time in the market because their once all-encompassing monopoly and brand name recognition are slipping. People are finally realising that Router != Cisco, that there are other choices out there. One of these choices is to build your own hardware. Thanks to the linked article, its much easier.

    Cisco's in trouble. They're facing tough competition, and a market that no longer automatically comes running to them as the only choice in networking. As a consequence (and judging form what you've said), things are starting to fall apart finance-wise. Now you're whinging that people have a cheaper option to implement hardware that your company sells for astronomical prices. To this I have three words for you - deal with it.

    Believe it or not, we're not all here to help maintain Cisco's market share. If we can get the same functionality without actually forking out $X trillion dollars to do it, we will. If Cisco cant deal with that in any other way than crying that people are "stealing" its products, well tough f%$king shit dude.

    Have the execs look at the company's strategies. Change the business plans, the products, whatever. Be proactive about keeping the marketshare - EARN it. Dont just whinge about losing it and ridicule people who help destroy the monopoly be showing people a *better alternative*

    --
    Janie took my gun...
  124. Correcting your information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cisco is gaining market share. Cisco has actually increased their sales in a time when the overall market is shrinking. Your post is passionate but sadly, it's fact-free.

    Also, Vanguard didn't whine about losing share. Why would he, it's not true. He also didn't say the company was starting to fall apart. The company is actually making money every quarter. Don't they have something like $22 Billion in the bank and growing?

  125. Re:Rhethoric trick by balloonhead · · Score: 1
    Only if you are consuming resources is it not the same - my example, however, used my new theories on thermodynamics and so no resources were needed to produce the porsche after downloading, and it was not taken from the factory, so the company made no loss from it.

    It is a slightly silly argument, but software really has very little comparable 'real-world' product as they all take resources to produce. Although it is annoying to see people taking extreme examples to make a point, on some occasions they can be useful to show something that otherwise cannot really be demonstrated.

    Of course, your take on what I have written is slighty tangiential to my point - apart from the resources thing, which was not really the point of balls of the comment but more a side effect of the example. I think the point is still there.

    Slashdot debates often have good points pulled apart because of minor flaws that don't really have any bearing on the overall argument - they are often just there to make people think slightly differently. I forgot this when I posted or I might have tried to find a more watertight example. In retrospect, maybe I should just have used Photoshop or something...

    --
    This idea was invented by Shampoo.
  126. Stupid comments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Took my time to read the comments.

    All I can see is a _lot_ of people that only partly know what they are talking about. Lots of guys posting what a PIX can or cannot do that really have no clue...

    Lots of people posting about using Linux or *BSD instead in coorperate environments without having any clue of what that means if you chose to go that way....

    Anyway too many clueless people.....