[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: ftp-proxy and pf.conf


On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 05:25:11PM -0700, Kjell Wooding wrote:
> And I can't believe they could hold a patent on a proxy
> modifying a firewall state table as a general concept. I can think
> of a gaggle of ways this could be done.

I never heard about this NAI claim until seeing this thread, but
I know that there are some related features in Cisco's ACLs
which, in more recent IOSs, have a feature to dynamically add
filters that allow connections that would normally be prohibited.
I didn't research this thoroughly, though, but saw discussion of
such features about 1-3 years ago. If Cisco holds a patent I
don't know either, but otherwise this could probably be used to
claim prior art.

> But, if we in the open source world stopped implementing features
> because of "patent pending" claims, we'd never need to get out of bed.

That's unfortunately correct, too, especially with large think
tanks doing nothing else but filing patents for the sake of
sqwatting "IP real estate", if one might say so.