The difference between an access control list (ACL) that is used in routers to block traffic and firewalls

at
Categories
Tags

 

A.) In no less than 250 words, explain the difference between an access control list (ACL) that is used in routers to block traffic and firewalls.  What similarities do they share?

B.) Answer Below Question in a sentence each:

1 List three design goals for a firewall.

2 List four techniques used by firewalls to control access and enforce a security policy.

3 What information is used by a typical packet filtering firewall?

4 What are some weaknesses of a packet filtering firewall?

5 What is the difference between a packet filtering firewall and a stateful inspection firewall?

6 What is an application-level gateway?

7 What is a circuit-level gateway?

9 What are the common characteristics of a bastion host?

10 Why is it useful to have host-based firewalls?

11 What is a DMZ network and what types of systems would you expect to find on such networks?

12 What is the difference between an internal and an external firewall?

Sample Solution

The difference between an access control list (ACL) that is used in routers to block traffic and firewalls

The Access Control List (ACL) is used for filtering the traffic to an interface and in a distribution list for filtering routing updates. Firewall is a device that will check for the traffic passing through a part of the network. The difference between the two lies in how they are implemented. The firewall has just one purpose of examining traffic and blocking or allowing the traffic. The ACL will have a lot of use cases, unlike a firewall. The second difference between the two lies in the type of inspection carried out. ACL does a stateless inspection, while Firewall handles a stateful inspection. ACL will only look at a packet and will not have anything to do with the conversation that this packet belongs to. The Firewall will analyze whether there is a proper beginning (Encapsulation) for the packets to pass through.

implementing the EA, Educating Scotland (2012) also supports the philosophy of inclusive education. They stipulate that inclusion rather than integration demonstrates a move away from seeing disabilities as a ‘deficit model’. The emphasis through the EA is more about recognising the whole person rather than focusing on the learner as being deficient in some way due to their disability. Individual students under the EA should not be catagorised but adjustments introduced which will allow the same opportunities as non-disabled students.

In support of UNESCO, Pupil Support and Access (2001 p2) demonstrate the importance of inclusion. ‘Schools supported by local education authorities and others should actively seek to remove the barriers to learning and participation that can hinder or exclude pupils with SEN. Schools and local education authorities that are successful at including pupils with special educational needs meet those needs in a positive and proactive way. They also approach inclusion as part of their overall improvement strategy. Inclusion is far more than just about the location of a child’s school placement’.

The above statements strongly support the EA’s ideals of inclusion and provisions for SEN students in mainstream schools. The emphasis and legal requirements are now clearly focused on schools making sure they provide the necessary support and adjustments for all SEN and disabled students.

How effective is Inclusion?

Developing inclusion involves students, professionals, partners, parents, carers and the wider community. According to Goodland and Lovat (1993) students with impairments or disabilities do better academically when they are able to socialise with their non-disabled peers during instructional time. Supporting evidence from Goor and Schwenn (1993) also indicate that the interaction between students with or without disabilities enhances academic achievement for students with disabilities.

Inclusion and Pupil Achievement Department for Education Skills RR578 (2004 p50), clearly argues that ‘LEAs with high rates of inclusion in mainstream did no worse than those with low rates of inclusion in national tests. At KS 4 in 2002 average point score was 38.55. For non statemented pupils with SEN, in mainstream, it was 21.85. For statemented pupils in mainstream it was 16.99 and for pupils in special schools it was 2.4 points 7 times worse. Add to this the impact of social isolation and low self-esteem it is understandable why 50

This question has been answered.

Get Answer