Re: Content Vectoring Protocol (CVP)

[Darren Reed <darrenr () reed wattle id au>]

In some email I received from Joe Nall, sie wrote:
[...]
> Check Point documents their API, but not an on-the-wire protocol in:
>  http://www.checkpoint.com/cvpopenspec/CVPOpenSpecification.pdf

So Checkpoint's "open specification" is in fact a commercial, closed,
protocol and not at all suitable for other products.

The use of the word "open" w.r.t Checkpoint's CVP is just sales smoke
and mirrors as far as the protocol itself is concerned.

Is there any merit in petitioning them to publish the wire protocol ?

Can anyone comment (publicly) on whether Checkpoint would even be open
to considering publishing their wire-protocol for CVP ?

There are two interesting issues for Checkpoint to think about here:

1. if they publish their protocol they still have a "head start" on
   everyone else;

2. if they don't, they're at the same position as everyone else and
   will need to spend more time & money on R&D to "keep up" when we
   get to a point where an open protocol is progressing.

Cheers,
Darren

_______________________________________________
Firewall-wizards mailing list
Firewall-wizards () nfr net
http://www.nfr.net/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards