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,
ROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Cisco PIX vs Checkpoint FIrewall-1 [7:2878]
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 Ch
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 11:37
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 holes in lower
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 can run traffic through
:[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: Eugene Nine [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent
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]
Subject: Re: Cisco PIX vs Checkpoint
...)
-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
llen 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 before it hits the PIX if URL
filtering is what you want. Then block all :80 + :443 traffic
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.
And
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 like job security making
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
-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/docs/fw1_or_pix.html
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
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 checkpoint and I want
.
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 Ch
day, 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 checkpoint + pix together
Hatim badr a icrit :
Hi ,
I would like to know th
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 Checkpoint FIrewall-1 [7:2878]
It depends on your security policy , design and needs , generally what
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
20 matches
Mail list logo
