full-disclosure - PIX vs CheckPoint; IMHO Netscreen is far superior

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

From: gem at rellim.com (Gary E. Miller)
Subject: PIX vs CheckPoint; IMHO Netscreen is far
 superior

-----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@...lim.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-----