It is a Cisco security blueprint. Check out http://www.cisco.com/en/US/partner/netsol/ns110/ns170/ns171/ns128/networking _solutions_package.html
Fred Reimer - CCNA Eclipsys Corporation, 200 Ashford Center North, Atlanta, GA 30338 Phone: 404-847-5177 Cell: 770-490-3071 Pager: 888-260-2050 NOTICE; This email contains confidential or proprietary information which may be legally privileged. It is intended only for the named recipient(s). If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected the email, please notify the author by replying to this message. If you are not the named recipient, you are not authorized to use, disclose, distribute, copy, print or rely on this email, and should immediately delete it from your computer. -----Original Message----- From: DeVoe, Charles (PKI) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 1:08 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Network Security [7:70841] What is SAFE??? -----Original Message----- From: Howard C. Berkowitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 3:11 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Network Security [7:70841] At 3:18 PM +0000 6/20/03, annlee wrote: >SAFE does start out with the explicit assumption that a Security Policy is >already in place. A valid observation. Still, with this specific post, there doesn't seem to be either a threat assessment or a security policy, just a request for mechanisms (not even in an architecture like SAFE). To coin a phrase, what problem is the original poster trying to solve? > >FWIW, there is an example Security Polcy in the MCNS course book from Cisco >Press -- >Mike Wenstrom's book -- > >http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1578701031/qid=1056122196/sr= 1-21/ref=sr_1_21/104-7746290-9333516?v=glance&s=books > >There are places where I disagree with how it's put together, but they >really are more differeneces of style rather than substance. > >Annlee > >""Howard C. Berkowitz"" wrote in message >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> As you've reminded me many times, Annlee, one really needs a security >> policy and a threat assessment before going into the details of the >> security architecture solution. SAFE doesn't give much guidance on >> policy formulation. >> >> I'm concerned with the goal statement of the original poster, "Want >> to go for network security, e.g., protect against virus attack," when >> virus attack isn't even a network security issue -- it's a host >> issue. Arguably, worm, as opposed to virus attacks, are both host and >> network, because they can affect bandwidth. >> >> >> At 1:40 PM +0000 6/19/03, annlee wrote: >> >Here's a good place to start -- >> > >> >>http://www.cisco.com/en/US/netsol/ns110/ns170/ns171/ns128/networking_solut i >ons_package.html >> > >> >Pick a blueprint appropriate to your organization's size and the type of >> >networking you do. SAFE is a mental architecture, as much as anything -- >> >it's a "think about the whole problem but solve it in increments" kind of >> >approach, I think. >> > >> >HTH >> > >> >Annlee >> > >> >""milind tare"" wrote in message >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> Dear All, >> >> >> >> >> >> i hv following setup;- >> >> >> >> >> >> 2 6506 core switches having redundancy. 10 Nos. 3508 >> >> Distribution Switches. and 3500 series access's >> >> switches. in whole plant i hv 140 switches. >> >> >> >> want to go for network security. e.g. protect from >> >> virus attact , hacking so can anyone sugest me cisco >> >> product. please give me the URL also so i can study. >> >> >> >> Thanks & Regards, >> > > milind Tare Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=72342&t=70841 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
