On Dec 13, 4:29pm, Wulf Losee wrote:
> Subject: Is DEC's SEAL as good as DEC claims?
> DEC's SEAL received a glowing mention in a December 12th
> _INFOWORLD_ article ("Digital and the Internet: heavy use and
> security"). Among other things the article claims: "For more than a decade,
> the Screening External Access Link, or SEAL, has kept Digitial Equipment's
> mammoth EasyNet completely impervious to outsiders".
>
> My immediate response was: "as far as they know". Anyway, all cynicism
> aside...
>
> Is SEAL as great as DEC says it is? Does anyone on the Firewalls list have
> any experiences with SEAL?
2 1/2 years worth. It works. Handles aprx 50K mail messages a month,
close to a gig of ftp, and all the http/gopher we seem to stuff thru it.
It is configurable (not as much, say, as the tis toolkit, which, imho, if
a logical next step for us...), and robust. The logging is extensive.
So much so that we end up with LARGE amounts of syslog information every
day to munge thru perl scripts to get the necessary info out--better to
have too much than too little though.
It is certainly one of the better products; well thought out, minimalist
in the size of it, and certainly a crystal box implementation (you get the
source).
Meets (and, in some areas, exceeds) our needs even after all this time.
Just my $.02.
--
Bryan D. Boyle |Physical: ER&E, Clinton, NJ (908) 730-3338
#include <disclaimer> |Virtual: bdboyle @
erenj .
com
World-Wide-Web: http://www.digimark.net/bdboyle/index.html
http://www.digimark.net/bdboyle/pubkey.html for pgp public key
References:
|
|
