I have setup and managed both PIX and Checkpoint in a variety of environments. I think they are both solid options in different situations. Here is how I market these products.
PIX - more cost effective - fast - you can have fail over - Can be more complicated to setup the CLI, but PIX has a nice feature of allowing all traffic out and none in by default. Who would I market this for? I would target this as an ideal candidate for small companies with rulesets that don't change much. They also need a Cisco savy person to manage it, usually a consultant. I am guessing you would fill this role. I have only made minor changes in the firewall I have managed for almost two years. Checkpoint - nice GUI for ruleset management - more expensive - required to know Unix or NT ( for the love of God don't use NT. Its security is very poor out of the box and requires a great deal of configuration to become mildly secure ) Who would I market this toward? I would target larger companies with Checkpoint. It is easier to manage the ruleset, but more setup time and more costly. I would also say this solution is slightly slower and more prone to security issues since you have to patch the OS and the firewall software. --- Jeffrey Reed wrote: > Has anyone performed or seen an in depth study of > PIX vs Checkpoint? I have > a customer who is looking at both. Ive read various > magazine articles, but > nothing from real people such as this group! :) > > Thanks!! > > Jeffrey Reed > Classic Networking, Inc. > Cell 717-805-5536 > Office 717-737-8586 > FAX 717-737-0290 [EMAIL PROTECTED] __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax http://http://taxes.yahoo.com/ Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=40171&t=40136 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
