When I last used the CISCO VPN solution they were reselling the SAFENET
client which did exactly as you describe. (and if your "stuff in the VPN"
was not contiguous you had to create multiple profiles within the client).
It stayed resident like a TSR and monitored all your traffic to see if any
pa
Have you tried split-tunneling? I think it's disabled by default because
it's seen as a security risk, but it is doable.
- Original Message -
From: "Craig Columbus"
To:
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 3:24 PM
Subject: Alternatives to Cisco VPN client [7:42604]
> Let me preface this by
Why not just implement the following feature if your clients are connecting
to a PIX/VPN Concentrator!?!
You define an access-list,
access-list SplitTunnel permit ip 192.168.x.x 255.255.255.0 192.168.x.x
255.255.255.0
Then enable the Split Tunnel feature in your VPNGROUP definitions,
vpngroup n
Thanks for the responses.
I'm aware of split tunneling with a concentrator. That's not what I want.
I'm looking for something that lets me connect to any IPSEC compliant
endpoint, whether it's a PIX, a router, or a Linux box. In other words,
the client shouldn't care what it's connecting to.
Thanks Anthony. When I was crawling through CCO today, I didn't see the
Safenet client available for download anywhere.
I checked out the Safenet website and can't see anywhere to download a
trial. I'll call their sales dept tomorrow and see if they can hook me
up. Unfortunately, there's no
On Sep 15, 1:00pm, "Craig Columbus" wrote:
}
} I've got a major complaint with the Cisco VPN client. It's not smart
} enough to differentiate local traffic/Internet traffic from VPN
} traffic. Therefore, you can't browse the Internet and your VPN network at
} the same time.
It is. How
Cisco VPN client [7:42604]
Thanks for the responses.
I'm aware of split tunneling with a concentrator. That's not what I want.
I'm looking for something that lets me connect to any IPSEC compliant
endpoint, whether it's a PIX, a router, or a Linux box. In other words,
the c
if you have any luck finding such an animal, let me know. I have clients who
would like to do this ( against my advice )
seriously, one of the knocks on ALL IPSec implementations, be they router,
firewall, or client, is that there are interoperability problems with all of
them.
In general, the I
I certainly appreciate the security risks. However, there are some
circumstances where the risks are reduced (notice I'm not saying
eliminated) by circumstance. For example, many clients are behind hardware
firewalls that allow only designated inbound traffic (forget about
tunneling at the f
Yeah, I feel your pain. I'm dealing with a related issue at the moment
getting clarification on whether a Netopia SDSL router will, or will not,
form a peer IPSEC/3DES tunnel with a Cisco router. I haven't had a chance
to test yet, but I'm hearing mixed answers. It just seems to me that if a
Have you tried the IPSec that is built into windows 2000?
Daniel Ladrach
CCNA, CCNP
WorldCom
> -Original Message-
> From: Craig Columbus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 1:37 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Alternatives to Cisco VPN
ay, April 26, 2002 1:37 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Alternatives to Cisco VPN client [7:42604]
>
>
> I certainly appreciate the security risks. However, there are some
> circumstances where the risks are reduced (notice I'm not saying
> eliminated) by circu
This isn't really what I'm after. However, as a temporary measure, I
decided to enable it and test.
I enabled it and still can't get access to the Internet. Further, when I
look at the statistics of the connection, it shows LAN access as disabled,
even though I have it enabled in the client.
o develop a product, and perhaps
someone will eventually. Unfortunately, that doesn't really help you right
now. ;-)
Regards,
Kent
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Craig Columbus
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 4:49 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTEC
Unfortunately, that doesn't really help you right
>now. ;-)
>
>Regards,
>Kent
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
>Craig Columbus
>Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 4:49 PM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: R
what's the security risk?
(putting on learning cap now... :) )
Mark
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Louie Belt
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 8:12 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Alternatives to Cisco VPN client [7:
x27;s the security risk?
>
> (putting on learning cap now... :) )
>
> Mark
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> Louie Belt
> Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 8:12 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Alte
rch for "split").
-- Lidiya White
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
Mark Odette II
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 11:20 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Alternatives to Cisco VPN client [7:42604]
what's the security risk
iginal Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
> Mark Odette II
> Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 11:20 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Alternatives to Cisco VPN client [7:42604]
>
> what's the security risk?
>
> (putti
om/warp/public/110/pix3000.html
(search for "split").
-- Lidiya White
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
Mark Odette II
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 11:20 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Alternatives to Cisco VPN client [7:42604]
20 matches
Mail list logo
