I cannot agree with that more. A small buisiness perspective is different from the Enterprise. Small business cannot afford the luxury of high priced FW and FW expertise. They can get low budget solution - with slightly higher risk factor. Some even do not own Unix boxes and will stay with the NT beast they know and manage. Arik Sudman Senior Project Mgr. BEZEQ > -----Original Message----- > From: Joe Ippolito [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: ℷ 29 &dalet;&tsadi;&mem;&bet;&resh; 1998 5:38 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: review "factors" > > I believe it all comes down to cost of ownership which includes: > > Software Costs > Hardware Costs > Installation Costs > Maintenance Costs > Support Costs > Costs associated with risks > > All weighted against the justification by business need. > > So if the support cost decreases 20% for a .01% increase in cost > associated > with risk due to the probability of an attack, the simpler user interface > wins every time. Look at it from management's viewpoint. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Paul D. Robertson > > Sent: Monday, December 28, 1998 4:21 PM > > To: Tom Neff > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: review "factors" > > > > > > On Mon, 28 Dec 1998, Tom Neff wrote: > > > > > > Security: 350 > > > > Ease of use/installation: 300 (almost as high as security!) > > > > Features: 250 > > > > Performance: 100 > > > > > > > > The score for security is about 1/3 of the total score. I submit > that > > > > someone hasn't thought through the function of a firewall. > > > > > > I agree that security shouldn't be "weighted" in a mix with > > unrelated factors. > > > But I do think that completeness of security is a legitimate > > factor in the > > > buying decision, since the project being protected may have a > > limited budget -- > > > and a manageable downside in case of sustained attack. > > > > > > I also think that ease of use is important, because a difficult > > interface > > > > Installation isn't the same as ease of use though. Many places can > > "afford" to have a system installed correctly, but may not have a > > professional day-to-day administrator. A firewall with "must be > > professionally installed" on its reviews can still be a better choice > > than one which is easy to install. > > > > > increases the likelihood that important components in a > > theoretically high > > > security rating will be misconfigured or go unused, thus > > lowering the overall > > > security of the system. > > > > Then again, there's the downside of it being too easy to open access to > > protocols that probably shouldn't be, so there's somewhat of an offset > > there. > > > > Paul > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > ----------- > > Paul D. Robertson "My statements in this message are > > personal opinions > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] which may have no basis whatsoever in fact." > > > > PSB#9280 > > > > - > > [To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with > > "unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.] > > > > - > [To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with > "unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.] - [To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
