Well, I really expect some flame for my opinion, but I have some
non-technical comments regarding checkpoint.
OK, let's put it this way, I really don't feel comfortable around
registering checkpoint server and sending them the registered IP address. I
understand this is only meant for copyrighting purposes, but again it still
doesn't make sense to me, they produced the S/W and they have all the IP
addresses of the installed machines?
I might be a bit paranoid here but...
Anyway, I appreciate your opinion on this.
--
Shahir Boshra
Telecommunications Specialist
USAID - Egypt
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tel: +202-5165505 ext. 2436
Fax: +202-5164659
"Ben Lovegrove" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chuck,
>
> Absolutely, especially point number 3 - I would be very surprised if
> either company said anything to the contrary!
>
> From time to time I play around on a Checkpoint box and although the
> GUI is very easy to use, the only complaint I have heard several times
> from those whose servers (e.g. collection stations) it protects is that
> there are timeouts. On investigation these are hard to pin down.
>
> Regards,
> Ben
> --- Chuck Larrieu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hey, Ben, I have
> recently sat in different seminars sponsored by
> > Cisco and
> > Checkpoint. From statements made by the presenters, I gathered that
> > both
> > companies agree on the following points:
> >
> > 1) Cisco PIX is far superior in terms of throughput.
> > 2) Checkpoint GUI / management, particularly of multiple security
> > domains,
> > multiple firewalls, and policy management, is far superior to
> > anything Cisco
> > has.
> > 3) Both companies maintain that their product is superior in terms of
> > general firewall features and functionality.
> >
> > Is this your impression as well?
> >
> > Chuck
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf
> > Of Ben
> > Lovegrove
> > Sent: Monday, August 07, 2000 7:48 AM
> > To: Phil Barker; cisco GroupStudy
> > Subject: Re: PIX versus Firewall-1 comparison
> >
> > Phil,
> >
> > I would imagine that the preference for Firewall-1 was expressed
> > because the administration of it is far more user friendly that a
> > PIX.
> > Admin of FW-1 can be carried out using a Windows GUI with all the
> > rules
> > laid out in glorious technicolour, while admin of a PIX involves a
> > CLI
> > (command line interface).
> >
> > But then again if you're a die-hard Cisco engineer you might think
> > that
> > Windows GUIs are a bit of a soft option, and that you prefer to do
> > things in raw CLI fashion.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Ben
> >
> > --- Phil Barker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Gang,
> > > Does anyone know where I can get a decent white
> > > paper comparing these two firewall solutions from a
> > > neutral standpoint ?
> > >
> > > I've been in a meeting recently where it has been
> > > claimed that we would always prefer Firewall-1 to PIX.
> > >
> > > Would anyone like to comment technically why this
> > > should be ?
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Phil.
> > >
>
>
> =====
> Ben Lovegrove, CCNP
> Redspan Solutions Ltd
> http://www.redspan.com
> Cisco: Products, Training, Jobs, Study Guides, Resources.
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk
> or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie
>
> ___________________________________
> UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html
> FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com
> Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ---
___________________________________
UPDATED Posting Guidelines: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/guide.html
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
