>1. Advanced NAT (One to one, One to many, And in todays world even NAT
> based on service) Also, it Shouldn't be a problem to forward
>services to
> inside NON-Windows(Read Unix servers).
Yes, but wouldn't this depend on the user's requirements? I can't see how
this can be used to determine whether or not an application should be called
a firewall.
>2. Decent logging and reporting
MSP has the ability to log to either text files or SQL database for advanced
reporting.
>3. Various(Numerious forms of authentication) IE,
> Skey, Secure-ID, Radius, Tacacs, etc...
Again, this will depend on user requirements, and should not be used in a
definition for a firewall.
>4. Should provide some content filtering, Java, Active-X, etc..
Can't answer - never checked this one. See point (3)
>5. Should provide a simple SMTP relay, or perhaps more advanced like
> Checkpoint's
Confused here - please clarify. It is possible to configure MSP2.0 to allow
an internal e-mail server to interact with the Internet.
>Centralized management/logging. The abitity to look at live connections...
>VPN's, both client to network and network to network.
MS' VPN works with MSP as stated above. And "centralized
management/logging" - what do you define as "centralized"?
>I just don't think that
>"MS Proxy Server" is a Firewall. Microsoft probably doesn't either! If
>they did, I am sure their marketing people would call it "Microsoft
>Firewall"!!
... so why do they refer to it as a Firewall on the cover for the CD?
Brian Steele
-
[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
