Re: hardware firewall buying
- From: Greg Hennessy <me@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 19:36:53 +0000
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 17:45:39 GMT, Leythos <void@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
If it qualified, technically, then it would have been submitted to Cert
for certification.
Err cobblers.
Are you seriously trying to argue that a Cisco ASA somehow isn't a firewall
because ICSA certification is in process and hasn't been granted yet ?
Do you expect people to believe that ICSA certified Checkpoint FW-1 running
on Splat is a 'firewall' but the exact same code running on a standalone
Redhat or Nokia IP series is not ?
How can you possibly assert that a cisco device running Firewall Feature
set cannot be a firewall because it has not been submitted to ICSA, but
those submitted devices running the exact same code somehow are ?
ICSA certfication is no guarantee of anything let alone fitness for
purpose.
According to
https://newlabs.icsalabs.com/icsa/product.php?tid=fghhf456fgh
the Chocolate FireGuards you're so fond of peddling are neither ISCA 4.0 or
4.1 certified, is that why they have been ripped and replaced on at least
two large watchguard customers here in the UK I know of.
Or is it because they are unsupportable bug ridden rubbish ?
greg
--
"He's raising an unholy army of singing dinosaurs!"
.
- References:
- hardware firewall buying
- From: Skywise
- hardware firewall buying
- Prev by Date: Re: sygate default action
- Next by Date: R60 SecuRemote Client Changing Behaviour
- Previous by thread: Re: hardware firewall buying
- Next by thread: Re: hardware firewall buying
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|