Re: [fw-wiz] Recommendation needed for a firewall appliance
From: Julian Gomez (kluivert_at_tm.net.my)
Date: 10/22/03
- Previous message: Vincent Martin: "[fw-wiz] Clients cant access pix w/ vpn from behind nat devices using the newest cisco client."
- In reply to: Mark Tinberg: "Re: [fw-wiz] Recommendation needed for a firewall appliance"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
To: Firewall Wizards List <firewall-wizards@honor.icsalabs.com> Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 21:35:38 +0800
On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 09:37:27PM -0500, Mark Tinberg spoke thusly:
>On Fri, 17 Oct 2003, Christopher L. Everett wrote:
>
>I believe Windows comes with an IPSec stack, although I don't know if its
>functional (it wasn't on W2K last I looked, and clients ended up buying
>SafeNet SoftPK) Linux has FreeSWAN (and USAGI) ahd I believe OSX ships
>with KAME from *BSD.
The default IPsec stack with W2K does work. One caveat which their website
documentation does not make particularly clear is that it *expects* static
IPs. Don't expect to be able to use it on your laptop from home, dialed up
to an ISP without changing the attributes in MMC accordingly. Won't work.
The SafeNet client was rather buggy in regards to x509 certs, but I think
that has been fixed for a while now.
(snip rest)
_______________________________________________
firewall-wizards mailing list
firewall-wizards@honor.icsalabs.com
http://honor.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards