Interesting, we work with a mojor telco into managed firewall solutions
for some big sites. fw-1, though pretty sturdy, seems to bugout on
occasions, like all natted space not getting it's packets, rules in the
middle of the ruleset stop working at irregular intervals almost daily,
all sorts of interesting failures, and yet, no one has thought here to
look as see, if when errors like this show up, are they merely
uni-directional, or are some of these more on the nasty end, perhaps
allowing packets and rules that would normally be denied. Why look and
evaluate when one merely needs to bounce fw1 and return it to 'normal'.
Though fw1 tends to be the choice of many, I've seen enough, and this is
on sun boxen, not unstable NT boxes, to make me cuatious in any investment
that way with *my* monies.
Thanks,
Ron DuFresne
On Sat, 3 Jun 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I have not seen 5.0....4.0 was better than 3.0 ...then I as well as
> everyone else would assume that. 4.0 does fall short on
> pounding. It is recommend that the Server be a min. of 400Mhz, 500-1G Ram
> and alot of HD space. 10Gig Min.
> for small networks. I do not recommend using there mail filter or you
> maybe waiting for your mail for a long time.
> I have not dealt with dual or quad processor and I do not know if they can
> even us it. Sidewinder is still used and I believe that
> is SCS major cash cow. Anyway I need to do a little research on 5.0 and
> FW1 and see the pro and cons.
>
> Nice discussions with you Carric. CIAO!
>
> Michael Lucas
> Engineering Consultant
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Cutting the space budget really restores my faith in humanity. It
eliminates dreams, goals, and ideals and lets us get straight to the
business of hate, debauchery, and self-annihilation." -- Johnny Hart
***testing, only testing, and damn good at it too!***
OK, so you're a Ph.D. Just don't touch anything.
-
[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
