[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] RE: [FW1] PIX vs. CheckPoint
Can you give an example of an underlying O/S weakness, say on NT when FW1 is the only appliaction on the box. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, 18 January 2001 1:46 AM To: [email protected]; Dean Cunningham; [email protected] Subject: RE: [FW1] PIX vs. CheckPoint Technically PIX is a better firewall solution as it does not inherit any underlying OS weakness, however it is much more complex to configure and the reporting is not as good. FW-1 is my preferred solution, I would rather have a slightly weaker firewall which is configured correctly than a very strong firewall which is misconfigured. The important thing to keep in mind with Checkpoint is the platform it is run on and as an MCSE I definitely recommend NOT NT. But what do I know ? Andrew Shore BTcd Information Systems Engineering Internet & Multimedia -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 17 January 2001 02:18 To: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: RE: [FW1] PIX vs. CheckPoint coke vs. pepsi? ford vs. chevy? (i'd rather push my FW1 than drive a pix!) I think FW-1 is a much better choice, myself. But i also manage 15+ FW-1s around the world, and not a single PIX. It's just a matter of preference, i think. Each has their own benefits, and weaknesses. But, I will say that document is a bunch of one-sided crap. Consider the source: a Cisco Study Group. Just my $0.02..... -----Original Message----- From: Dean Cunningham [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 7:45 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [FW1] PIX vs. CheckPoint It is probably fairly similar to NT vs Unix "discussions" that go on in this forum. It comes down to "run what you know" and "run what you need for your business requirements" The doument quoted is old and has been inconsitantly updated. It is more of a brain dump of soemone who knows PIX and had fw1 on eval for a couple of days. I could probably create a similar document to the same unbiased standard if someone could loan me a PIX box for a day or two. The result would be a document on how bad PIX was and how FW1 fixes those problems Documentation section is rubbish, I have always receive a full set of manuals. with FW2000 one small manual and I assume online or on CD documentation my personal opinion of course. -----Original Message----- From: Jim Brown [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, 17 January 2001 12:04 PM To: 'Frank Darden'; Jim Brown; [email protected] Subject: RE: [FW1] PIX vs. CheckPoint I guess it is not very clear from my original post that I am a CheckPoint bigot as well. It becomes tiresome defending the product against biased, one-sided views. I injected my comments into the thread on the other list several times, but it becomes very frustrating when individuals highlight issues with a product that are theoretically nonexistent if you understand it or know how to use it. -----Original Message----- From: Frank Darden [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 3:40 PM To: 'Jim Brown'; [email protected] Subject: RE: [FW1] PIX vs. CheckPoint After reading this it is clear the reviewer has not done his homework. This is why I HATE so many product reviews, the reviewer does not put forth the effort to properly review the products. Unfortunately, many people take these reviews as fact. In the case of this review, there are severe flaws, pointless points, and generally wrong statements.. We do in house testing for theis very reason. Dont believe everything you read. I could pick this thing apart line by line, and I might if I get some time. True, I am a FW-1 bigot, but I am not neccesarily religious about anything. CP has its flaws, suprisingly I did not really see any of them listed here.. Frank -----Original Message----- From: Jim Brown [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 5:19 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [FW1] PIX vs. CheckPoint This document was posted in the Cisco Study group. It was inferred this was an unbiased objective view. I would be interested in this groups comments. http://www.roble.com/docs/fw1_or_pix.html *************************************************** This e-mail is not an official statement of the Waikato Regional Council unless otherwise stated. Visit our website http://www.ew.govt.nz *************************************************** ============================================================================ ==== To unsubscribe from this mailing list, please see the instructions at http://www.checkpoint.com/services/mailing.html ============================================================================ ==== ============================================================================ ==== To unsubscribe from this mailing list, please see the instructions at http://www.checkpoint.com/services/mailing.html ============================================================================ ==== *************************************************** This e-mail is not an official statement of the Waikato Regional Council unless otherwise stated. Visit our website http://www.ew.govt.nz *************************************************** ================================================================================ To unsubscribe from this mailing list, please see the instructions at http://www.checkpoint.com/services/mailing.html ================================================================================
|