Security Basics mailing list archives
Re: UTM
From: "kevin fielder" <kevin.fielder () gmail com>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:45:31 +0100
Hi All I'd agree that in smaller environments these devices can be useful, especially when you consider the lower management overhead required which will likely make the life of the 1 or 2 IT guys easier. Also they may actually end up being more secure as the guys managing them may have time to become profficient configuring one device via one management interfaces rather than multiple devices. My main concern with devices of this type is other than the fact that they are unlikely to be best of breed in all areas, there is always the possibility that a vulnerability in one component or successful attack against one component could lead to circumventing the entire device. For example a vuln in an AV component could lead to an virus / worm that could bring the firewall down - possibly unlikely, I haven't checked the stats / tests that have been performed against these devices, but certainly something to be aware of. For larger environments with skilled teams I would still recommend going for separate devices chosen to meet your companies needs (e.g. balancing the cost / ease of use / performance equation). Cheers Kevin -----Original Message----- From: listbounce () securityfocus com [mailto:listbounce () securityfocus com] On Behalf Of Craig Wright Sent: 19 April 2007 00:21 To: mickael kael; Tornado Cc: security-basics () securityfocus com Subject: RE: UTM I agree. Small networks with restricted funds are the best target for this device. I still have an issue putting all my eggs in one basket so to speak though. The primary issue that I see with UTM's in small organisations is that they are deemed set and forget. This may be wrong and I understand this, but the devices suffer from the admonishments of the vendor sales team. I have heard them sold as one stop set and forget devices. Though most on the list are likely to have issues with this type of sales strategy, most consumers of these devices are not people on this list. Regards, Craig Craig Wright Manager of Information Systems Direct +61 2 9286 5497 Craig.Wright () bdo com au BDO Kendalls (NSW) Level 19, 2 Market Street Sydney NSW 2000 GPO Box 2551 Sydney NSW 2001 Fax +61 2 9993 9497 www.bdo.com.au Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation in respect of matters arising within those States and Territories of Australia where such legislation exists. The information in this email and any attachments is confidential. If you are not the named addressee you must not read, print, copy, distribute, or use in any way this transmission or any information it contains. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by return email, destroy all copies and delete it from your system. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and not necessarily endorsed by BDO Kendalls. You may not rely on this message as advice unless subsequently confirmed by fax or letter signed by a Partner or Director of BDO Kendalls. It is your responsibility to scan this communication and any files attached for computer viruses and other defects. BDO Kendalls does not accept liability for any loss or damage however caused which may result from this communication or any files attached. A full version of the BDO Kendalls disclaimer, and our Privacy statement, can be found on the BDO Kendalls website at http://www.bdo.com.au or by emailing administrator () bdo com au. BDO Kendalls is a national association of separate partnerships and entities. -----Original Message----- From: listbounce () securityfocus com [mailto:listbounce () securityfocus com] On Behalf Of mickael kael Sent: Thursday, 19 April 2007 3:07 AM To: Tornado Cc: security-basics () securityfocus com Subject: Re: UTM Hi, I have deployed some UTM (i will not give you the name). I met lot of of bug and bad implementation, this result in lot of firmware update (update = network outage + technician intervention cost). UTM is maybe a good way for small office but you must take care about maintenance time. Appliance which do just one thing (Cisco pix, ...) are generally more stable and there is no need to update it every 4 month. Best regards, Mk, On 4/18/07, Tornado <itsec_guy () bluebottle com> wrote: > Hi all, > > What are your views about UTMs (Unified Threat Management Sytems)? > We are looking at Sonicwall Pro 2040 and Pro 3060 for our company. Has > anyone had experience with UTMs ? Any other alternatives to Sonicwall? > > You help will be appreciated. Thanks in advance. > > >