Firewall Wizards mailing list archives

Re: Multiple firewalls from different manufactureres

From: <damnliberals () gmail com>
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 12:54:18 -0700

On 1/28/05 7:30 AM, "Paul D. Robertson" <paul () compuwar net> wrote:

It's never been just about the firewall, transport layer and state engine
bugs have happened in the past, let's not even talk about the folks who
think IPS on the firewall is a rocking good thing and the parsing
issues and update of the month stuff that happens there.



Why is it bad?  We're looking at a manufacturer of those "all in one"
firewalls: AV, IPS, VPN, content filtering.  I see the IPS as sort of
a bonus that we can turn on if we want.  I prefer a best of breed
approach with multiple devices, but upper mgmt wants easy
administration and fast implementation.
_______________________________________________
firewall-wizards mailing list
firewall-wizards () honor icsalabs com
http://honor.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards

Current thread:

NAT for public IPs Jose Hidalgo Herrera (Jan 28)
- Re: NAT for public IPs Paul D. Robertson (Jan 28)
- Re: NAT for public IPs Kevin (Jan 28)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: NAT for public IPs Randy Grimshaw (Jan 28)
  - Re: Multiple firewalls from different manufactureres damnliberals (Jan 28)
    - Re: Multiple firewalls from different manufactureres Paul D. Robertson (Jan 28)