> IMHO, I think the tests are slightly skewed. The tests were primarily
> from a performance standpoint with security being a minor issue. From
> what I know of the contenders mentioned, any self-respecting hacker can
> go through *all 3* of their top picks. From a security standpoint, the
> tests were disappointing to say the least.
Then you must know something that no one else in the industry knows.
Perhaps you would care to elaborate on your statements regarding the
security of Firewall-1, Cyberguard and Gauntlet?
It's true, however, that the article is laughably off-base in claiming
(in the first sentence, no less) that performance directly relates to ability
to withstand attack. Screening routers are very fast, but I wouldn't want to
rely *only* on a screening router for my network security.
Follow-Ups:
References:
|
|
