Sorry Mr. Holger but I dispense comments like yours. In my last mail I only said that he will not have problem with security because solutions like netgear only does nat and port forwarding and is not a firewall(complementing the past mail from Scott.Vachon) and later I suggested security products from Cisco and Check Point.
You're no one to say how I must proceed. In the next time try to read the whole mail and pay attention ;-) Kleber Reichert Holger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Sorry Mr. Kleber but you should also read the Hardening VS Firewalling >Thread > >Even if you've the best firewall available you will have problems with >security, if you do nothing more than firewalling. > >It's not the way to post in a security list to say, take this or that >product and you will have no problems. >You are contributing to the bad arguement, make firewalling and you are >save. > >Just my 2 Cents >Yes, here in Europe we have Cents too ;-) > >Holger Reichert >www.holysword.de >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Gesendet: Dienstag, 15. Januar 2002 19:56 >An: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Betreff: RE: RE: Security for new small company > > >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 ! >> >-- > > > > >__________________________________________________________________ >Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas. >Experience the convenience of buying online with Shop@Netscape! >http://shopnow.netscape.com/ > >Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at >http://webmail.netscape.com/ > -- __________________________________________________________________ Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas. Experience the convenience of buying online with Shop@Netscape! http://shopnow.netscape.com/ Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/
