Lol was thinking the same. Op 24 jan. 2014 16:20 schreef "Steven M. Caesare" <[email protected]> het volgende:
> Dear Sonicwall Marketing Honcho- > > > > Your model name choice for your firewall series referred to below is… > “unfortunate” for a security device in this day and age. Please reconsider. > Maybe something like the “Snowden-3000”? > > > > Yours Truly- > > > > NSA Subject #8675309 > > > > > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Richard Stovall > *Sent:* Thursday, January 23, 2014 7:40 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [NTSysADM] Firewall upgrade > > > > Sizing is dependent on a lot of factors. > http://www.sonicwall.com/us/en/products/NSA-Series.html#tab=compare > > > > Also, I can't recommend the folks at sonicguard.com highly enough when it > comes to buying SonicWall gear. Great prices and excellent service. Ping > me offline if you like and I'll send you direct contact info. for them. > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 7:24 PM, J- P <[email protected]> wrote: > > any suggestions/recommendations on make/models, ? I would really > appreciate your input. > > thanks > > > > > > > > > > > > Jean-Paul Natola > > > ------------------------------ > > From: [email protected] > Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 13:59:14 -0500 > Subject: Re: [NTSysADM] Firewall upgrade > To: [email protected] > > I prefer to keep those functions on the firewall in most cases, if it can > reasonably do so. > > More layers of security, smaller attack surface, less downtime associated > with patching, etc > > > > > > > > > > *ASB**http://XeeMe.com/AndrewBaker* <http://xeeme.com/AndrewBaker> > *Providing Virtual CIO Services (IT Operations & Information Security) for > the SMB market…* > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 11:58 AM, J- P <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi all, > > I have a client that has a Sonicwall tz 170 or 190 and the ssl appliance > 200 I believe, either way both are end of life , and no support on them, > so we are looking at a replacement , here's the environment; > > 2 site to site tunnels (one to a draytek, other to a cisco ) small office > each 5 users > Dual wan required & VPN obviously, > > HQ; > VMWARE essential host (guest 2008ts with Citrix Fundamentals) > 1 OSX server , profile manager (10 macs) > 1 2003r2 DC > 1 2003 member with SQL > 2 hyper v host running 2012 (Guest on host 1 exchange 2013. Guests on > host 2008r2 DC, 2012 file server, 2012 RDS in Eval mode not sure if they > want to convert from Citrix Fundamentals yet) > > 50 local users, most of which remote in via citrix, however, the designers > need to VPN in on their MACs in order to access /edit files with OSX . > > Given all the capabilities /options with 2012 VPN , remote web access, > direct access etc, > does it make more sense to still use the firewall to handle all these > tasks, or should I be looking at server 2012 to handle these connections > ? > > > Thanks for your imput > > > > > >
