Jim, On Thu, 2005-11-17 at 13:28 -0800, Jim Harrison (ISA) wrote: > Your statements are fine as far as they go, but there is real (as > opposed to anecdotal) data that directly contradicts your stated > concerns. > There are *lots* of Enterprise networks running ISA 2000 and/or ISA 2004 > on the edge. > Several of these customers have also consented to public case studies > which are (proudly) posted on the microosft.com/isaserver pages. > > Short story - no one has offered anything more than "ancient history" to > counter the facts offered in ISA's favor.
Not to be flippant, but I tried - I wasn't really trying to ISA bash, but I disagreed with you when you said on Tuesday that: > I know it sounds like marketing spew, but the simple fact is; in 5+ > years of service on anything from an SBS server, OEM appliance to HUGE > enterprise deployments, ISA server has the distinction of not having > been the recipient of one single exploit in the wild. > and then that... > I know it sounds like marketing spew, but the simple fact is; in 5+ > years of service on anything from an SBS server, OEM appliance to HUGE > enterprise deployments, ISA server has the distinction of not having > been the recipient of one single exploit in the wild. ..more specifically, the bulk of my point was that you weren't comparing like with like, you were comparing a whole firewall platform (IOS/Juniper) with something (ISA) which is just a firewalling stack which necessarily has pre-requisite software which it's combined with to make up the whole firewall, and ignoring the platform (windows) which it was running on top of. So far I haven't had a reply.. ;) If you want to discuss this, I'd be more than happy to re-send my original post on this topic to the list, as this is really a bastardisation of what I was originally trying to say! > - James. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
