Re: hardware firewall buying
- From: Greg Hennessy <me@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 21:22:19 +0000
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 20:49:34 GMT, Leythos <void@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <frick2t082u48mb8b12qlu6upcf1p45lsh@xxxxxxx>, me@xxxxxxxxxxx
says...
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 ?
How can you possibly assert that a 457 makes the car fast?
As usual you've proven incapable of addressing a single point raised.
By your own logic Watchguard products are now not firewalls.
[diversionary fallacious irrelevance binned]
--
"He's raising an unholy army of singing dinosaurs!"
.
- References:
- hardware firewall buying
- From: Skywise
- Re: hardware firewall buying
- From: Greg Hennessy
- hardware firewall buying
- Prev by Date: Re: false portscan alarm
- Next by Date: Re: hardware firewall buying
- Previous by thread: Re: hardware firewall buying
- Next by thread: Re: hardware firewall buying
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|