Hi friends,
I have few basic questions,
1. If I can implement NAT and Access policy on normal router which has 2
ethernet interfaces then how PIX improves the perfomance as an dedicated
Firewall(If Iam not implemeting VPN).
2 Which is the best firewall and more reliable. What are the perfomance
Hi friends,
I have few basic questions,
1. If I can implement NAT and Access policy on normal router which has 2
ethernet interfaces then how PIX improves the perfomance as an dedicated
Firewall(If Iam not implemeting VPN).
2 Which is the best firewall and more reliable. What are the perfo
This is what you want:
http://www.roble.com/docs/fw1_or_pix.html
Regards,
David Wolsefer, CCIE #5858
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Imran Obaidullah M
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2001 4:23 AM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subje
Not a bad article in here but just a little more. I have both the
Checkpoint 4.1 and the Pix 525. I bought the 525's because I was tiered of
dealing with Checkpoint. CKP is terrible at customer support and licensing,
and I am not saying this from just my experience. I was in the classes
recent
From: Mark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2001 10:54 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: PIX vs CheckPoint
Not a bad article in here but just a little more. I have both the
Checkpoint 4.1 and the Pix 525. I bought the 525's because I was tiered of
dealing with Checkpoint
Where I work we have two PIX Firewalls (520), one strictly for Internet
usage (e-commerce), the other for corporate Internet access + Extranets.
When I went to PIX training, everyone there had already worked with
Checkpoint Firewalls, and so I heard some good feedback in regards to
comparisons.
M
]]On Behalf Of
Jim Brown
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2001 10:34 AM
To: 'Mark'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: PIX vs CheckPoint
I've been watching this thread and I have kept quiet. The article listed
below is obviously biased. CheckPoint has its issues but none of them are
performan
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2001 1:34 PM
To: 'Mark'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: PIX vs CheckPoint
I've been watching this thread and I have kept quiet. The article listed
below is obviously biased. CheckPoint has its issues but none of them are
performance relate
but I won't bore
anyone.
> If someone would like more details or a realistic view on CheckPoint
> capabilities you can contact me offline.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Mark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, January 12, 2001 10:54 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subje
x27;t get me wrong, I love Cisco but this product just fit our needs.
-Original Message-
From: Mark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2001 1:31 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: PIX vs CheckPoint
In some aspects I do agree but we have checkpoint on sun 250'
Hi David,
Thanks for the link. The URL answers my 2nd question. Can you give me some
details on the first qstn.
regards
imran
-Original Message-
From: David Wolsefer
To: Imran Obaidullah M
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 1/12/01 11:04 PM
Subject: RE: PIX vs CheckPoint
This is what you
Hi,
Thanks for the link. It answers my 2nd question. Can you give some details
on the 1st.
Regards
imran
-Original Message-
From: David Wolsefer
To: Imran Obaidullah M
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 1/12/01 11:04 PM
Subject: RE: PIX vs CheckPoint
This is what you want:
http
.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Imran Obaidullah M
Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2001 9:24 PM
To: 'David Wolsefer '; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED] '
Subject: RE: PIX vs CheckPoint
Hi,
Thanks for the li
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
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! :)
>
y 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 article
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:
> &
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 )
>
With that said, I'm really a PIX person so don't get the wrong impression.
;-)
Rik
-Original Message-
From: nrf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 7:08 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: PIX VS CheckPoint [7:40136]
On the other hand, there's a d
; > > > - 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 config
f
Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 4:08 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: PIX VS CheckPoint [7:40136]
On the other hand, there's a distinct third option, which is to run
Checkpoint on a dedicated hardware appliance, for example the Nokia Ipso
line of gear. This removes one of the Checkpoint
t: Re: PIX VS CheckPoint [7:40136]
I knew somebody was going to come back with that. All-right fine, it is
indeed true that Ipso is a hacked version of Unix. But then again, so is
Cisco IOS and Juniper JunOS, and you could say that it helps to have
knowledge of Unix to run either of those (espec
2002 9:21 PM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: PIX VS CheckPoint [7:40136]
>
>I knew somebody was going to come back with that. All-right fine, it is
>indeed true that Ipso is a hacked version of Unix. But then again, so is
>Cisco IOS and Juniper JunOS, and you could say t
ot;Jeffrey Reed"" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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 th
PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Timo Graser
Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2002 7:05 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: PIX VS CheckPoint [7:40136]
The Pix has also a browser interface. The only disadvantage in the past
was, that you could not configure a vpn. With the new pdm you will be
able to do this too
, 2002 2:48 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: PIX VS CheckPoint [7:40136]
Timo- Which version of the PDM are you referring to that has the VPN config
capability??
I have 1.1.2 now, and I have not found that functionality... Am I just
overlooking something!?!?!
TIA for your response.
-Mark Odette
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
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
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
Asked sincerely, 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
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:Re: Cisco PIX vs
D]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Asked sincerely, 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
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
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
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
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
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
---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
At 10:44 AM 5/4/01 -0400, Jim Brown wrote:
>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]
>S
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
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
"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
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
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
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/
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
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
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
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:
48 matches
Mail list logo
