Re: SecureNAT vs. ISA client
- From: "Greg Koniecek" <agadesign@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "[ISAserver.org Discussion List]" <isalist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2002 11:25:02 -0400
Thank you Jim for your comments. Let me ask you some more questions than: :)
- Do you install both methods on the client's workstations by default?
- Are there any risk considerations involved by having one or both enabled
(i.e. client being able to use not allowed services from the Internet like ICQ)?
- Which "connection type" take precedense when connecting to Internet?
- Is it possible that user authentication will not work because session is
using secureNAT instead of FW client (assuming both are enabled)?
Thank you
Greg
> Yes, the FW client allows:
> 1. User authentication
> 2. complex protocols (MSNIM, for instance)
> 3. binding to specific ISA external IP/protocol/port combinations
> 4. application-based control over traffic
>
> Jim Harrison
> MCP(NT4, W2K), A+, Network+, PCG
> http://isaserver.org/authors/harrison/
> Read the books!
> Is there any advantage in installing ISA client if default gateway
> (secureNAT) is already pointing to the ISA server?
>
> Greg
Other related posts:
