Re: [Full-Disclosure] PIX vs CheckPoint; IMHO Netscreen is farsuperior
From: Aditya, ALD [ Aditya Lalit Deshmukh ] (aditya.deshmukh_at_online.gateway.technolabs.net)
Date: 07/01/04
- Previous message: Drew Copley: "RE: [Full-Disclosure] (IE/SCOB) Switching Software Because of Bugs: Some Facts About Software and Security bugs"
- Next in thread: Darren Reed: "Re: [Full-Disclosure] PIX vs CheckPoint; IMHO Netscreen is farsuperior"
- Reply: Darren Reed: "Re: [Full-Disclosure] PIX vs CheckPoint; IMHO Netscreen is farsuperior"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
To: "Gary E. Miller" <gem@rellim.com>, "Edward W. Ray" <support@mmicman.com> Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 06:54:56 +0530
> 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.
now you are talking, if you are using BSD how about using Openbsd with the paket filter ?
щb╜ъ▐vы"Ю axZ▐xўл▓Й┌ФGb╢*'бєК[kjпЁ├цj)mнк rЙ
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
- Previous message: Drew Copley: "RE: [Full-Disclosure] (IE/SCOB) Switching Software Because of Bugs: Some Facts About Software and Security bugs"
- Next in thread: Darren Reed: "Re: [Full-Disclosure] PIX vs CheckPoint; IMHO Netscreen is farsuperior"
- Reply: Darren Reed: "Re: [Full-Disclosure] PIX vs CheckPoint; IMHO Netscreen is farsuperior"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
