Re: [Full-disclosure] Suggestion for IDS

--On Wednesday, September 28, 2005 17:48:59 +0100 "Paul S. Brown" 
<pol@geekstuff.tv> wrote:

> On Wednesday 28 September 2005 16:56, Michael Holstein wrote:
> > > If you NAT a lot, PIX can't handle the load.  It also isn't flexible
> > > enough.
> >
> > Huh? .. the FWSM (which is PIX and you can have 4 of them in a chassis)
> > can handle 100 intefaces, 5gpbs, 100k CPS, and 1M concurrent per blade.
> >
> > http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/modules/ps2706/ps4452/
> >
> > Show me an OpenBSD system that can handle 400 interfaces, 20gbps, and 4M
> > connections (and can do HSRP, etc).
> >
> > (I'm not trying to start an open-source "holy war" on a newsgrop .. I
> > use pf too, where I need the granularity -- just not on the whole
> > network).
>
> I suspect the argument here has to be cost-for-cost - in the price range
> for a  decent beefy OpenBSD box you aren't going to be using FWSMs, and I
> can quite  believe that the PIXen in that price range don't perform - the
> PIX 501 is  specced at 60MB/s throughput and the cheapest retail price I
> can find for it  is $678 for the unlimited license version - for the same
> money you can get a  beefy PC which will push quite a bit more than 60MB/s
$678?  Ours were in the mid five figure range.  You must be talking about 
SOHO units.

Paul Schmehl (pauls@utdallas.edu)
Adjunct Information Security Officer
University of Texas at Dallas
AVIEN Founding Member
http://www.utdallas.edu/ir/security/
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/