Hi,
All our Checkpoint licenses have expiry dates of 'never'. Is UK licensing
different to US?
I have requested several licenses (including IP address changes/feature
changes) through an intermediary company to Checkpoint. The licenses are
available via the web for partners/resellers with the required access. If I
contact the reseller directly I can get a new license in about 24 hours at
most.
For this reason I can only assume that you are not dealing with Checkpoint
direct and are receiving a poor service from the intermediary company.
I'm not biased on this. I'm primarily Cisco and like the Pix, but have been
forced into the Firewall-1 and have grown to like it too.
Horses for courses I suppose.
Cheers,
Gaz
""ML"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
8vphqv$62t$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:8vphqv$62t$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Well, Let me talk about this one. First of all the GUI on the Checkpoint
> is great but you still have to know what services and objects you want to
> give or deny access too. I have to tell you that even an ACL is more
> flexible than a Checkpoint rule. With that said the checkpoint product is
> very good at what it does, but VPN is not the most fun and requires a
great
> effort to get folks talking with the network behind it.
>
> The fact that Checkpoint resides on an NT or Sun box, Nokia also but that
is
> another story all together, leaves us to believe that the OS is the
> weakness, well that is true. Both the NT and Unix OS's need to be
hardened
> before you have a secure environment. In addition you have to be able to
> scale properly, this means you have got to have a Platform that can handle
> the traffic, in Sun's case we spend a lot of money to have powerful enough
> machines to run Checkpoint. Dont forget the cost of the harware platform.
>
> Licensing, well basically Checkpoint sucks, It has taken us at times 3
> months to get a permanent license after purchasing it. I don't want to go
> any further on that because I will rant and rave about the lack of service
> all day long. As far as annual costs, well you got it, every years you
get
> to pay for it, there are no upgrades only purchase of the new rev, also
the
> service is way more expensive than the PIX service..
>
> Let me be honest, the checkpoint product works very well, but the problems
> with service , licensing and throughput has us ordering the PIX 525. You
> can also use the Cisco Secure Management software to update your sites, I
> hear it works well.
>
>
> ML
>
>
> "Chuck Larrieu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> 009701c0571f$87c1c680$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:009701c0571f$87c1c680$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > I have heard both Cisco and Checkpoint sales engineers ( not in the same
> > room at the same time ) agree to the following points:
> >
> > 1) Checkpoint management ( GUI ) is FAR superior to anything Cisco has.
> > 2) PIX is FAR superior in terms of throughput
> > 3) Everything else the vendors say are subject to interpretation and
> > prejudice
> >
> > Checkpoint management superiority shows itself in situations where you
> have
> > multiple firewalls and multiple security domains, where policy requires
> > constant updating, etc. PIX is just fine in situations where are limited
> > number of firewalls, and/or limited policy change, so command line
> > configuration is not so overwhelming.
> >
> > I have also heard ( but do not know for a fact ) that at this time,
> > Checkpoint VPN-1 client side software is the most stable on the market
for
> > client PC secure VPN tunnels. My source was my DE, who tells me that she
> has
> > derived several VPN designs around the Checkpoint/Nokia product. The
> > feedback from the field, she tells me, is that there are fewer issues
with
> > Checkpoint than with Cisco Secure Client and the VPNet client. This too
> may
> > be one of perception. I have not read any industry comparison tests.
> >
> > In the end, one should begin with a clear and written security policy,
and
> > then choose based upon which vendor satisfies the precepts of that
policy.
> >
> > Chuck
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
> > Jason Roysdon
> > Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2000 11:58 AM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: comparison between checkpoint firewall-1 and cisco pix 525
> >
> > Correct me if I'm wrong, but one of the key differences is that
Checkpoint
> > requires a "subscription" fee every year or so.
> >
> > The biggest selling point I give to customers is that Firewall-1 runs on
> top
> > of Unix or NT, and use good ol' FUD regarding OS that aren't that secure
> to
> > begin with, vs. the PIX has a completely hardened/customized OS.
> >
> > Best suggestion would be to hit both vendors' sites and see what they
have
> > to say.
> >
> > --
> > Jason Roysdon, CCNA, MCSE, CNA, Network+, A+
> > List email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Homepage: http://jason.artoo.net/
> > Cisco resources: http://r2cisco.artoo.net/
> >
> >
> > ""D'souza Agnelo"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Hi,
> > > Can anyone give me comparisons between checkpoint
> > > firewall-1 and cisco pix 525.
> > >
> > >
> > > Agn
> >
> >
> >
> > _________________________________
> > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
> > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
> > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > _________________________________
> > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
> > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
>
>
> _________________________________
> FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
> Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
