In my set-up I have the following rules base.
Directors@Any Any-Website Accept
Any Webesense-X-List Deny
Techs@Any Any-Website Accept
Any Webense-Hackingsites Deny
Marketing@Any Any-Webiste Accept
Any Websense-Gambling/Alcohol Deny
..... etc
Therefore under the current version 4 I can 't achive the same
flexible web browsing policy within our company.
Regards
PD
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hubbard, Dan [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, October 12, 2001 3:06 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [FW-1] websense versus surfcontrol
>
> ***** This message originated from outside the AA *****
>
>
>
> Peter;
>
> Could you please expand as to what you mean by "its is not as feature ric
> to install as a UFP product" ? We have many more features in our 4.x
> product than 3.x. Among them: LDAP support, UFP caching, NG support, NTLM,
> transparent ID.....
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dickson, Peter
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 10/10/01 4:05 AM
> Subject: Re: [FW-1] websense versus surfcontrol
>
> We ran websense 3.11 using UFP , but since version 4 of Websense it is
> not
> as feature rich to install as a UFP product.
> Checkpoint security server can be slow , I have ended up running several
> copies of this.
> 3.11 is very stable I takes non or little administration.
> My set-up is
>
> User Authentication to f/w using radius/ secure-id
> rules base set-up on a user bases to allow different access (
> can't
> do this in version 4 )
> Fw-1 proxy chains onto another proxy for caching and virus
> checking.
>
>
> Regards
>
> PD
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Lars Troen [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2001 9:20 AM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: [FW-1] websense versus surfcontrol
> >
> > ***** This message originated from outside the AA *****
> >
> > Daniel,
> > It's best to do this on the proxy. There are several
> performance/stability
> > issues when using it with firewall-1 UFP. WebSense is a nice product
> and
> > can
> > be used along with MS Proxy Server/MS ISA Server. I haven't used
> > SurfControl
> > tho, but I believe their url database is much smaller than websense's.
> >
> > Lars
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Mailing list for discussion of Firewall-1
> > > [ <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]On Behalf Of
> Daniel
> > > Morone
> > > Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2001 16:12
> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Subject: [FW-1] websense versus surfcontrol
> > >
> > >
> > > I can't find an objective comparision between WebSense and
> > > SurfControl. Could you please share your experience good or bad
> > > with either of these products as a UFP server? Also, anybody
> > > done this with HA?
> > >
> > > We currently implement a filter at our proxy server and are
> > > interested in moving to the firewall/UFP. It appears the top
> > > two contenders are WebSense and SurfControl. We may continue
> > > doing reporting off the proxy logs as that's where authentication
> > occurs.
> > >
> > > Looking for comments about:
> > > - list quality
> > > - administration
> > > - performance
> > > - stability
> > > - support
> > >
> > >
> > > ==================================================================
> > > ==============
> > > 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>
> >
> ========================================================================
> ==
> > ======
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The information contained in or attached to this email is
> intended only for the use of the individual or entity to
> which it is addressed. If you are not the intended
> recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the
> intended recipient, you are not authorised to and must not
> disclose, copy, distribute, or retain this message or any
> part of it. It may contain information which is confidential
> and/or covered by legal professional or other privilege (or
> other rules or laws with similar effect in jurisdictions
> outside England and Wales).
>
> The views expressed in this email are not necessarily the
> views of Centrica plc, and the company, its directors,
> officers or employees make no representation or accept any
> liability for its accuracy or completeness unless expressly
> stated to the contrary.
>
>
> ========================================================================
> ========
> 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
================================================================================
