btw, Cisco now has the PIX 501 which has a built-in 4 port switch on one version.
http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/cc/pd/fw/sqfw500/prodlit/px501_ds.htm -scm On Tue, 15 Jan 2002, Kleber S Oliveira wrote: > Check Point (small office, Internet Gateway for 25 users, etc) and Cisco (PIX 506, >etc) have solutions for branch offices and small business. I think that later the >company will not have problem with security. > > Cheers > > Kleber > > "Vachon, Scott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>In regards to your statement about a netgear router. A device that does > >>nat and port forwarding is not a firewall. > > > >It is not a "true" firewall, though it is marketed as one. > > > >> Easily hackable. > > > >Can you point us to evidence to support this statement ? > > > >>There is no rulebase in one of those things. > > > >Not true. The Netgear routers do allow one to implement a rulebase via the > >CLI. > > > >>You could easily get the cisco pix or as I prefer a checkpoint FW1 for > >small business. I am very big on checkpoint and it has got a lot more > >features then a cisco pix. > > > >Easily get ? You are assuming that a small business can " > > > >1) Afford a PIX or Checkpoint FW > >2) Afford training so as to properly administrate devices from #1. > >3) Afford to hire a person proficient on #1. > > > >IMHO , a small business could do very well with one of the SOHO NATting > >devices. They could further enhance the protection by ensuing all the host > >systems have the latest patches, and up-to-date anti-virus software running. > >Yes, you are correct that PIX and FW-1 are better but, the key word was > >"small business." > > > >~S~ > > > >Disclaimer: My own two cents ! > > >
