Come on guys maybe the plans were given to them by NSA and they wanted to pass that on? Jon Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 17:14:02 +0100 Subject: RE: [NTSysADM] Firewall upgrade From: [email protected] To: [email protected]
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 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
