True, true. Good point. Of course, you can always disable all the fixups
;-)'
--
Jason Roysdon, CCNP+Security/CCDP, MCSE, CNA, Network+, A+
List email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Homepage: http://jason.artoo.net/
""Carroll Kong"" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> At 11:
iginal Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
Dave
> Chappell
> Sent: Friday, May 04, 2001 3:14 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Cisco PIX vs Checkpoint FIrewall-1 [7:2878]
>
> This might be of interest:
>
> http://w
At 11:37 PM 5/5/01 -0400, Jason Roysdon wrote:
>Huh? How would the PIX fixups possibly lead to security holes? They're
>there to protect the end device and only allow in the RFC commands (which
>can actually be a pain, like with SMTP mailguard being too strict for SMTP
>authentication on Exchang
Huh? How would the PIX fixups possibly lead to security holes? They're
there to protect the end device and only allow in the RFC commands (which
can actually be a pain, like with SMTP mailguard being too strict for SMTP
authentication on Exchange). I don't see how this can be a security hole,
b
enterprises.
Chuck
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Dave
Chappell
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2001 3:14 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Cisco PIX vs Checkpoint FIrewall-1 [7:2878]
This might be of interest:
http://www.roble.com/
This might be of interest:
http://www.roble.com/docs/fw1_or_pix.html
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Brian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2001 10:52 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Cisco PIX vs Checkpoint FIrewall-1 [7:2878]
In a serious enterprise of scale, I
age-
From: Allen May [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2001 10:05 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Cisco PIX vs Checkpoint FIrewall-1 [7:2878]
I installed the GUI for the PIX but haven't used it yet. Letting something
else build my config just seems weird ;) Almost l
"Maness, Drew" wrote:
>
>
> But today firewalls protect the IP stack.
While they are running, yes. You can cause the software to crash,
often leaving the machine, and the network, exposed. This is one
of the big problems with a software firewall.
>A
public/cc/so/neso/sqso/csap/wbsn_rg.htm
>
> Allen May
> - Original Message -
> From: "Jason Roysdon"
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2001 10:25 PM
> Subject: Re: Cisco PIX vs Checkpoint FIrewall-1 [7:2878]
>
>
> > You can run traffic through a Proxy box
I haven't had time to work with it, since I'm preparing for this little
know
> lab called CCIE or something like that. What's an IGP? (oh my brain is
> starting to hurt...)
>
> -Original Message-----
> From: Jim Brown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, M
ubject: Re: Cisco PIX vs Checkpoint FIrewall-1 [7:2878]
>
>
>PIX goes up to layer 4, so it won't do things like URL filtering.
>Checkpoint (or other SW) can do higher layer protection but may not be as
>well at the lower layers (due to security holes in the OS, etc)
>Eugene
I think
---Original Message-
From: Jim Brown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2001 7:45 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Cisco PIX vs Checkpoint FIrewall-1 [7:2878]
Security holes in lower layers? Where did you come up with that, your Cisco
rep?
-Original Message-
From: Eug
PIX can do url filtering with Websense.
http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/cc/so/neso/sqso/csap/wbsn_rg.htm
Allen May
- Original Message -
From: "Jason Roysdon"
To:
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2001 10:25 PM
Subject: Re: Cisco PIX vs Checkpoint FIrewall-1 [7:2878]
> You ca
In a serious enterprise of scale, I would indeed consider using both a pix
and a server based firewall.
Bri
- Original Message -
From: "Jim Brown"
To:
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2001 7:44 AM
Subject: RE: Cisco PIX vs Checkpoint FIrewall-1 [7:2878]
> Security h
Security holes in lower layers? Where did you come up with that, your Cisco
rep?
-Original Message-
From: Eugene Nine [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2001 5:01 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Cisco PIX vs Checkpoint FIrewall-1 [7:2878]
PIX goes up to layer 4
ncerely, what advantages do you see in provisions PIX plus
> > checkpoint?
> >
> > Chuck
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2001 2:47 PM
&g
OTECTED]] On Behalf Of
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2001 2:47 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Cisco PIX vs Checkpoint FIrewall-1 [7:2878]
>
> It depends on your security policy , design and needs , generally what we
> advice our
> customers is chec
2:47 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Cisco PIX vs Checkpoint FIrewall-1 [7:2878]
>
> It depends on your security policy , design and needs , generally what we
> advice our
> customers is checkpoint + pix together
>
> Hatim badr a icrit :
>
> > Hi ,
> &
Checkpoint FIrewall-1 [7:2878]
It depends on your security policy , design and needs , generally what we
advice our
customers is checkpoint + pix together
Hatim badr a icrit :
> Hi ,
>
> I would like to know the pluses and minuses of each product . Currently
We
> are using checkpoin
It depends on your security policy , design and needs , generally what we
advice our
customers is checkpoint + pix together
Hatim badr a icrit :
> Hi ,
>
> I would like to know the pluses and minuses of each product . Currently We
> are using checkpoint and I want to convince my management to
Cisco's CCO has info:
http://cisco.com/go/pix/
Cisco always has links to studies that show them on top:
http://sartryck.idg.se/art/firewall7_eng.html
--
Jason Roysdon, CCNP+Security/CCDP, MCSE, CNA, Network+, A+
List email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Homepage: http://jason.artoo.net/
""Hatim badr"" w
Hi ,
I would like to know the pluses and minuses of each product . Currently We
are using checkpoint and I want to convince my management to switch to cisco
PIX firewall .
Thanks
Hatim
Get free email and a permanent
22 matches
Mail list logo
