Re: IPcop v Smoothwall
From: Wolfgang Lonien (wjlonien_at_gmx.net)
Date: 10/16/03
- Next message: Wolfgang Lonien: "Re: any reviews of the current firewalls out there."
- Previous message: ObiWan: "Re: IPcop v Smoothwall"
- In reply to: Andy_at_nospam.co.uk: "Re: IPcop v Smoothwall"
- Next in thread: ObiWan: "Re: IPcop v Smoothwall"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 09:13:17 +0200
Andy@nospam.co.uk wrote:
> The FR318 comes as standard allowing for 8 IP addresses + 4 that cannot
> have access to the WAN. Given that the 3 laptops in my family all use
> both WIFI and 100MB this uses 6, my workstation another etc etc not enough
> :-(
Replace the Netgear with a Snapgear, which runs ucLinux and FreeS/WAN.
You'll get unlimited users. For just a few VPN tunnels, the Lite+ would be
cool (we use these ones for homeworkers), tho if you demand more tunnels up
at the same time, you should take one of their bigger ones which uses
hardware encryption.
According to IPCop and SmoothWall: the latter had a few security issues, and
their CEO wasn't quite happy in hearing that from a German magazine. I
tried them both, but here we decided to use the Astaro firewall, which is
free for personal use and gives that extra-protection for professionals.
HTH,
wjl
- Next message: Wolfgang Lonien: "Re: any reviews of the current firewalls out there."
- Previous message: ObiWan: "Re: IPcop v Smoothwall"
- In reply to: Andy_at_nospam.co.uk: "Re: IPcop v Smoothwall"
- Next in thread: ObiWan: "Re: IPcop v Smoothwall"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
