--On Sunday, December 08, 2002 2:59 PM -0500 "Small, Jim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
*snort* *giggle* Please define "objective". I completed an _extensive_ firewall review for my previous employer. FW-1 is one of the slowest. They are _very_ careful with what benchmarks they run. And they heavily pressure anyone who runs benchmarks they don't like.I'm curious why you don't like FW1. Checkpoint is the industry leader. Also, the objective performance reviews I've seen have Checkpoint as the fastest performer. I also like that it has command line access and you can even write code to interface with it--Pretty open for a commercial product.
Oh, and their feature set is also nothing to write home about. They still can't handle networks with the same subnets on multiple interfaces - i.e. "illegal NAT". This is a basic failing in their design - rules can't be interface specific. Their management tools are pretty, but not particularly good. Here - add a firewall to Provider-1. Delete it. Try to add a firewall with the same name as the old one. Now tear your hair out and get ready for some quality time with the undocumented command line cert store editor. Feh.
Of course, if you've only been comparing them to PIX, it may be 6 of one half a dozen of the other. Netscreen kicks both of their butts (not that they don't have their own issues, but no product is perfect).
Enough ranting - if anyone would like a more detailed discussion of the features I evaluated, I'd be happy to have the conversation.
--
Carson
