Re: [fw-wiz] Opinion: Worst interface ever.

From: Paul D. Robertson (paul_at_compuwar.net)
Date: 07/05/05

  • Next message: Dave Piscitello: "Re: [fw-wiz] Opinion: Worst interface ever."
    To: StefanDorn@bankcib.com
    Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 10:16:07 -0400 (EDT)
    
    

    On Tue, 5 Jul 2005 StefanDorn@bankcib.com wrote:

    > > I can't even imagine trying to audit the "we'll pick the most exact
    > match"
    > > ruleset evaluation of one of these beasts. If I thought there was any
    > > chance the old software would work with the new box, I'd be loading that
    > > tomorrow. My "same vendor" rationale is right out the window- the two
    > > products aren't even close- other than the fact they're both red.
    >
    >
    > The 7.x series of software does this- precedence is based on how specific
    > each rule is. The most specific rules are evaluated first, and so on. Of

    But what counts as specific? Is a port more or less specific than an
    address? Is a protocol less specific than a user? If they do an ASIC
    rev, is my happy little ruleset going to do something different if I have
    to replace a box?

    > course, the software itself does nothing to show you the order they are
    > in. I think I recall reading that in the newer "Fireware Pro" software,
    > you can manually set precedence. Maybe it hasn't been implemented yet.
    >

    I think their marketing department needs smacked. I didn't even start to
    go on about having three interfaces in the box I can't use unless I pay
    more money.

    > > While I'm ranting- what's with support hours from 9-6pm *at my
    > > location*?
    > > Hello Watchguard- firewalls are *production* boxes, downtime doesn't get
    > > scheduled for when the users are still working!
    >
    > The good news is, they have a support forum with some pretty helpful
    > Watchguard people moderating it, and even a few customers who try to help
    > people out. Bad news is, I've yet to get a question completely answered
    > via their incident response system. Barring disaster, I generally try to
    > figure a problem out myself, since every time I contact support they
    > immediately request that I let them connect and play with the
    > configuration..which isn't going to happen. It makes me wonder if
    > outsourcing can really be worth it, considering the fact that it generally
    > results in customers getting irritated with it and then requesting a US
    > representative anyway. Why not just get it right the first time?
    >

    I'm glad I'm not the only one left with that impression. I'm going to go
    back over my personal evaluation criteria and tweak the support parts to
    match what I see as good. I also think that I'm going to go back to
    building more open source based firewalls- the idea behind a commercial
    product is support and consistency. I'm not seeing good things in either
    department.

    Paul
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Paul D. Robertson "My statements in this message are personal opinions
    paul@compuwar.net which may have no basis whatsoever in fact."
    _______________________________________________
    firewall-wizards mailing list
    firewall-wizards@honor.icsalabs.com
    http://honor.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards


  • Next message: Dave Piscitello: "Re: [fw-wiz] Opinion: Worst interface ever."

    Relevant Pages

    • [ANN] JVoiceXML release 0.6
      ... added initial support for multi document applications ... evaluation of xml:base in VXML ... basic implementation of a SRGS XML to SRGS XML grammar transformer ... bugfix: SRGS ABNF grammar identifier ignores grammar tag ...
      (comp.speech.research)
    • Re: Writing a getf style function that uses equal
      ... In SETF of GETF, the first argument is a place rather than just ... - You need to ensure the order of evaluation yourself. ... - Does not support specially evaluated arguments. ... + Can easily point to a generic function. ...
      (comp.lang.lisp)
    • Re: Updating Evaluation Version of PB 5.0 to the Real Deal
      ... the uninstall/install. ... you'll waste a lot more than the install time for the full version. ... > The support phone number is in the Help menu of PB, but, if your evaluation ... >> I have installed an evaluation version of Platform Builder for WinCE 5.0. ...
      (microsoft.public.windowsce.platbuilder)
    • Re: Intel Fortran 8, bug with trimmed string arguments
      ... you get 30 days of full support through Intel ... I raised some support issues during an evaluation, then bought a license. ... > changed - but you can download the current one from your Premier Support ...
      (comp.lang.fortran)
    • Re: pf rules - evaluation vs. packets
      ... That is possible because pf can automatically skip evaluation of specific ... One packet can cause evaluation of zero, ... I.e. every packet (that passes ruleset evaluation, ... last matching rule's, not every matching rule's along the way. ...
      (comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc)