RE: Firewall Comparisons
- From: "John Tolmachoff" <isalist@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "'[ISAserver.org Discussion List]'" <isalist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 11:04:14 -0700
This says differently than that engineer:
http://www.microsoft.com/PressPass/features/2001/feb01/02-14isaserver.as
p
http://www.icsalabs.com/html/communities/firewalls/certification/rxvendo
rs/microsoftisas2000/labreport_cid303.shtml
John Tolmachoff
IT Manager, Network Engineer
RelianceSoft, Inc.
Fullerton, CA 92835
www.reliancesoft.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Glenn Maks [mailto:gmaks@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 10:43 AM
To: [ISAserver.org Discussion List]
Subject: [isalist] Firewall Comparisons
http://www.ISAserver.org
This is a general broadcast to whom ever would like to respond, I am
currently evaluating firewall packages, and have looked at Checkpoint,
Symantec Enterprise and some others including Microsoft ISA. During a
recent conversation with a Checkpoint support engineer we discussed what
makes a true firewall and how one package may be better or worse than
another. When I mentioned I was looking at Microsoft ISA this engineer
seemed to take great delight in bashing Microsoft's ISA product.
Basically, he claimed it was nothing more than a extended version of
Microsoft Proxy Server and felt it did not have the necessary
requirements to be classified as a true firewall, he also pointed out
that Microsoft ISA was a state-less proxy server as opposed to the
state-full operations of say Symantec Enterprise 7.0, formally know as
Axent Raptor or Checkpoint-1. I would be glad to hear any feed back as
to the acceptance of Microsoft ISA as a functional firewall. I have
worked with ISA and I do like what I see. Feed back is welcome
Thank you
Glenn
------------------------------------------------------
You are currently subscribed to this ISAserver.org Discussion List as:
isalist@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send a blank email to $subst('Email.Unsub')
Other related posts:
