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.




Network Security FullDisclosure
[Top] [All Lists]
<prev [Date] next>
[Advanced]
 <prev [Thread] next>

RE: [Full-Disclosure] PIX vs CheckPoint; IMHO Netscreen is far superior

from [Gary E. Miller] Network Security [Permanent Link]
Subject: RE: [Full-Disclosure] PIX vs CheckPoint; IMHO Netscreen is far superior
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 15:59:13 -0700 (PDT) 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Yo Edward!

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Edward W. Ray wrote:


If your choices are only checkpoint or PIX, I would choose Checkpoint.  IMHO
it is more reliable.  But if you really want a networking company that is
not a marketing company, check out Juniper/Netscreen Firewalls,
http://www.netscreen.com


You gotta be more specific than FW-1.  FW-1 can run over a large number
of OS.  You can get FW-1 for WinNT, Solaris, Linux, BSD . Each has the
strengths and weaknesses of the underlying OS.  Also FW-1 can run on a
large number of hardware platforms, PCI, Compact-PCI, Sparc, etc.  Each
has it's strengths and weaknesses.

You can eliminate the WinNT versions.  Who wants to reboot their firewall
daily?  I prefer the PCI hardware, when a system goes down it is nice to
be able to run to a local PC store for spare parts instead of waiting for
overnight priority service.

RGDS
GARY
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary E. Miller Rellim 20340 Empire Blvd, Suite E-3, Bend, OR 97701
        gem@rellim.com  Tel:+1(541)382-8588 Fax: +1(541)382-8676

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFA4fRE8KZibdeR3qURAtTkAKDYZhhv9enMZm0bbOTQYW6AzICDeQCeLdo+
/o1oIOIY+TKdh07bJF+odZM=
=AxK3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[More with this subject...]




<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Previous by Date:  Re: [Full-Disclosure] PIX vs CheckPoint, Eric Paynter
Next by Date:  [Full-Disclosure] MDKSA-2004:063 - Updated libpng packages fix potential remote compromise, Mandrake Linux Security Team
Previous by Thread:  RE: [Full-Disclosure] PIX vs CheckPoint; IMHO Netscreen is far superior, Edward W. Ray
Next by Thread:  Re: [Full-Disclosure] PIX vs CheckPoint; IMHO Netscreen is farsuperior, Aditya, ALD [ Aditya Lalit Deshmukh ]
Indexes:  [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]