On Wed, 6 Sep 2000, Haugsness, Kyle wrote:
> Aaron,
>
> You provide some excellent counter-points regarding NFR. They do rely on a
> load-balancing solution to get into the 100 Mbps range. But out of the box,
> they are much faster than RealSecure. My concern is that people are
> dropping packets, but not even realizing it.
Yeah, most of the companies I've spoken with won't even admit that their
product drops things until you grill them about it.
> One thing that I like about NFR is that it's based on a stripped-down
> OpenBSD kernel. The entire OS loads read-only from CD-ROM.
NFR was definately one of the most promising thanks to their OpenBSD
kernel and the idea that they actually WATCH and REACT to mailing lists
like these. In their next version of their product I think they'll even
support SCSI drives too :) If only I had a small enough network where I
could use them.
> I've also been looking for port-level monitoring from a host-based
> commercial IDS, but haven't found much.
If only one of them would actually take the time to read what we want and
add the functionality... -dreaming-
- Aaron Schultz
- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------
/"\ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
\ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign
X - NO HTML/RTF in e-mail
/ \ - NO Word docs in e-mail
-
[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
