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: [Full-Disclosure] PIX vs CheckPoint; IMHO Netscreen is far su perior |
|---|---|
| Date: | Tue, 29 Jun 2004 19:11:05 -0400 |
It really depends on the requirements one has for a firewall and which Checkpoint platform they are going to run on, Nokia, SecPlat on a Dell, Alteon, or CrossBeam. And if you are going to use vulnerabilities as a reason you should then be using Secure Computing Sidewinder. -----Original Message----- From: Edward W. Ray [mailto:support@mmicman.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 5:27 PM To: full-disclosure@lists.netsys.com Subject: RE: [Full-Disclosure] PIX vs CheckPoint; IMHO Netscreen is far superior IMHO, neither is very good. I have been using Netscreen (bought by Juniper for $4 billion earlier this year) products for over fours years. PIX is a very buggy and exploitable OS. Checkpoint is somewhat better, although it dies under most DoS attacks. My netscreen have been much better at shunting DoS attacks, have far less vulnerabilities reported than either Checkpoint or PIX, and is a true hardware firewall with its own custom ASIC. 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 Good luck with your studies! Edward W. Ray -----Original Message----- From: full-disclosure-admin@lists.netsys.com [mailto:full-disclosure-admin@lists.netsys.com] On Behalf Of Eric Paynter Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 1:47 PM To: full-disclosure@lists.netsys.com Subject: RE: [Full-Disclosure] PIX vs CheckPoint On Tue, June 29, 2004 11:59 am, James Patterson Wicks said:
CheckPoint's interface is very intuitive and easy to use.
Easy to use in a "Microsoft" kind of way. Last I heard, it does nice things for you like always allow DNS traffic through, even if you have no port 53 rule and a deny all policy. How helpful! -Eric -- arctic bears - affordable email and name services @yourdomain.com http://www.arcticbears.com _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | [Full-Disclosure] MDKSA-2004:064 - Updated apache2 packages fix DoS vulnerability, Mandrake Linux Security Team |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | RE: [Full-Disclosure] PIX vs CheckPoint, Tom Curry |
| Previous by Thread: | [Full-Disclosure] MDKSA-2004:064 - Updated apache2 packages fix DoS vulnerability, Mandrake Linux Security Team |
| Next by Thread: | [Full-Disclosure] MDKSA-2004:065 - Updated apache packages fix buffer overflow vulnerability in mod_proxy, Mandrake Linux Security Team |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |