Ethical Hacking Learn to find vulnerabilities before the bad guys do! Gain real world hands on hacking experience in our state of the art hacking lab. Course designed and taught by expert instructors with years of penetration testing experience. 12 student maximum in every class. Certification attempt included in every package. | Computer Forensics Training at InfoSec Institute Gain the in-demand skills of a certified computer examiner, learn to recover trace data left behind by fraud, theft, and cybercrime perpetrators. Discover the source of computer crime and abuse at your organization so that it never happens again. All of our class sizes are guaranteed to be 12 students or less to facilitate one-on-one interaction with one of our expert instructors. |

| Subject: | RE: IPS Reliability/Availability |
|---|---|
| Date: | Wed, 15 Mar 2006 22:56:33 -0800 (PST) |
--- Mike Barkett <mbarkett@nfr.com> wrote:
The RISC based solution we are discussing is markedly different in that it has none of the above, and it relies less on
load
balancing than traditional "sandwich" solutions.
OK. From bird?s-eye view, your solution looks like FWLB in a chassi, but this forum is probably inappropriate place to discuss specifics of the NFR solution.
It's hard to be specific without knowing the details of load balancing. However, let me try to list a few issues: - Increased latencies and jitter in case of inline deployment. - Burst loss. For example, try to do a deep inspection without loss of a >>
large TCP window of a single TCP session sent by a server or a test
device over a gige interface. What's max burst you can process without loss? - If traffic from a malicious source is distributed to several CPUs,it will take you much longer or even impossible to detect the attack and start dropping malicious traffic.
It's certainly understandable that you'd be skeptical about the numbers being thrown around. You're not the only one. And it's true that a poorly Implemented distribution scheme will suffer from the problems you mention. These are not new concerns, however, and the equipment and software that we use to tackle the speed problem are specifically designed to handle these challenges. As someone said on a previous thread (or was it this thread?), let's wait until the third party numbers come out before passing judgment.
....... Sure, however let?s keep in mind that the third parties don?t test for spike, burst latencies and jitter in the IDP testing. See: http://seclists.org/lists/focus-ids/2006/Feb/0018.html Jack. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Test Your IDS Is your IDS deployed correctly? Find out quickly and easily by testing it with real-world attacks from CORE IMPACT. Go to http://www.securityfocus.com/sponsor/CoreSecurity_focus-ids_040708 to learn more. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | RE: IPS Reliability/Availability, Mike Barkett |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: IDS Analyst skill set, Maarten Van Horenbeeck |
| Previous by Thread: | RE: IPS Reliability/Availability, Mike Barkett |
| Next by Thread: | IDS vs. IPS deployment feedback, watsont |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |