Acutally I have been dealing with my reseller and Checkpopint directly, your
software license is good for ever, but it is not if you want the next
version, there are no upgrades, you have to purchase the new software, in
addition the cost is really in the support, Gold support for example is
pricey and is in the third tier as far as support goes. I can easily buy
Cisco hardware and support for the same price as the Gold support for the
CHeckpoint firewalls that I use. I cant say that I have had a lot of luck
in the support lines either.
Like I said it is a good product but much to hard to deal with the issues
Cisco QOS is much better.
ML
"Gareth Hinton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
8vrm13$3uo$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:8vrm13$3uo$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Hi,
>
> All our Checkpoint licenses have expiry dates of 'never'. Is UK licensing
> different to US?
> I have requested several licenses (including IP address changes/feature
> changes) through an intermediary company to Checkpoint. The licenses are
> available via the web for partners/resellers with the required access. If
I
> contact the reseller directly I can get a new license in about 24 hours at
> most.
> For this reason I can only assume that you are not dealing with Checkpoint
> direct and are receiving a poor service from the intermediary company.
> I'm not biased on this. I'm primarily Cisco and like the Pix, but have
been
> forced into the Firewall-1 and have grown to like it too.
> Horses for courses I suppose.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Gaz
>
> ""ML"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> 8vphqv$62t$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:8vphqv$62t$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Well, Let me talk about this one. First of all the GUI on the
Checkpoint
> > is great but you still have to know what services and objects you want
to
> > give or deny access too. I have to tell you that even an ACL is more
> > flexible than a Checkpoint rule. With that said the checkpoint product
is
> > very good at what it does, but VPN is not the most fun and requires a
> great
> > effort to get folks talking with the network behind it.
> >
> > The fact that Checkpoint resides on an NT or Sun box, Nokia also but
that
> is
> > another story all together, leaves us to believe that the OS is the
> > weakness, well that is true. Both the NT and Unix OS's need to be
> hardened
> > before you have a secure environment. In addition you have to be able
to
> > scale properly, this means you have got to have a Platform that can
handle
> > the traffic, in Sun's case we spend a lot of money to have powerful
enough
> > machines to run Checkpoint. Dont forget the cost of the harware
platform.
> >
> > Licensing, well basically Checkpoint sucks, It has taken us at times 3
> > months to get a permanent license after purchasing it. I don't want to
go
> > any further on that because I will rant and rave about the lack of
service
> > all day long. As far as annual costs, well you got it, every years you
> get
> > to pay for it, there are no upgrades only purchase of the new rev, also
> the
> > service is way more expensive than the PIX service..
> >
> > Let me be honest, the checkpoint product works very well, but the
problems
> > with service , licensing and throughput has us ordering the PIX 525.
You
> > can also use the Cisco Secure Management software to update your sites,
I
> > hear it works well.
> >
> >
> > ML
> >
> >
> > "Chuck Larrieu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > 009701c0571f$87c1c680$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:009701c0571f$87c1c680$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > I have heard both Cisco and Checkpoint sales engineers ( not in the
same
> > > room at the same time ) agree to the following points:
> > >
> > > 1) Checkpoint management ( GUI ) is FAR superior to anything Cisco
has.
> > > 2) PIX is FAR superior in terms of throughput
> > > 3) Everything else the vendors say are subject to interpretation and
> > > prejudice
> > >
> > > Checkpoint management superiority shows itself in situations where you
> > have
> > > multiple firewalls and multiple security domains, where policy
requires
> > > constant updating, etc. PIX is just fine in situations where are
limited
> > > number of firewalls, and/or limited policy change, so command line
> > > configuration is not so overwhelming.
> > >
> > > I have also heard ( but do not know for a fact ) that at this time,
> > > Checkpoint VPN-1 client side software is the most stable on the market
> for
> > > client PC secure VPN tunnels. My source was my DE, who tells me that
she
> > has
> > > derived several VPN designs around the Checkpoint/Nokia product. The
> > > feedback from the field, she tells me, is that there are fewer issues
> with
> > > Checkpoint than with Cisco Secure Client and the VPNet client. This
too
> > may
> > > be one of perception. I have not read any industry comparison tests.
> > >
> > > In the end, one should begin with a clear and written security policy,
> and
> > > then choose based upon which vendor satisfies the precepts of that
> policy.
> > >
> > > Chuck
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf
Of
> > > Jason Roysdon
> > > Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2000 11:58 AM
> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Subject: Re: comparison between checkpoint firewall-1 and cisco pix
525
> > >
> > > Correct me if I'm wrong, but one of the key differences is that
> Checkpoint
> > > requires a "subscription" fee every year or so.
> > >
> > > The biggest selling point I give to customers is that Firewall-1 runs
on
> > top
> > > of Unix or NT, and use good ol' FUD regarding OS that aren't that
secure
> > to
> > > begin with, vs. the PIX has a completely hardened/customized OS.
> > >
> > > Best suggestion would be to hit both vendors' sites and see what they
> have
> > > to say.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Jason Roysdon, CCNA, MCSE, CNA, Network+, A+
> > > List email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Homepage: http://jason.artoo.net/
> > > Cisco resources: http://r2cisco.artoo.net/
> > >
> > >
> > > ""D'souza Agnelo"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Hi,
> > > > Can anyone give me comparisons between checkpoint
> > > > firewall-1 and cisco pix 525.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Agn
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _________________________________
> > > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
> > > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
> > > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > > _________________________________
> > > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
> > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
> > > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> >
> >
> > _________________________________
> > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
> > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
>
>
> _________________________________
> FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
> Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
