Re: Which Router for VPN and Webhosting

From: David (davidwnh_at_adelphia.net)
Date: 09/20/03 

Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2003 16:31:29 GMT

If you have ever used ISA server you would realize that it is geared for
protecting workstations. It does have the capability to protect servers but
in this respect probably best only for smaller businesses and not high
traffic servers.

Different firewalls are geared for different scenarios. So it's not a matter
of MS not thinking their server couldn't handle it, it is a matter of MS
knowing that their product wasn't design to be used for that specific
purpose in the first place. And MS knowing that the problem would diminish
quickly so renting services from elsewhere would be more cost effective than
deploying their own equipment .

>
> Which brings me back to my original comment about Microsoft
> having to go use to Akamai's Linux caching firewalls for
> protection. You know full well that Microsoft has the resources
> to have set up a bank of ISA Servers somewhere to deal with the
> DDoS stuff, but they didn't. Because of time? Apparently they
> have been using Akamai for a while to deal with attacks and you
> don't need that many firewalls, even for a company the size of
> Microsoft So why then? Because their own stuff wasn't up for the
> job and it would have been mortifying for them to have to go
> out and buy Linux-based firewall systems, so contracting out
> the service was likely a face-saving gesture. If you look at all
> high-end firewall appliances and what they use for the underlying
> OS, that pretty does make your claim that Windows can be made as
> secure as any Linux/Unix box extremely ridiculous. How ridiculous?

Relevant Pages