since we're already slightly off topic, I might add my two cents. i checked
out Norton Antivirus for firewalls. I did a lab test with it in conjunction
with TIS Gauntlet. Both Gauntlet and NAV for Firewalls installed and
configured quite easily, assuming you have some knowledge of what you're
doing in general. NAV is definitely worth a look. Stands alone, and has Web
based config. (no i don't work for either. independant opinion)
mark
-----Original Message-----
From: Jerry Huyghe <jerry @
eliashim .
com>
To: seane @
choreo .
ca <seane @
choreo .
ca>; firewalls-digest @
GreatCircle .
COM
<firewalls-digest @
GreatCircle .
COM>
Date: Tuesday, July 29, 1997 6:47 PM
Subject: Re: Virus Scanner
>>Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 15:45:55 -0700
>>From: Sean Elrington <seane @
intergate .
bc .
ca>
>>Subject: Re: Virus Scanner
>>
>>This thread is drifting ever further away from firewalls but while we
>>are talking about gateway anti-virus you should check Trend Micro
>>(http://www.antivirus.com) since they patented their scanning engine and
>>have started to sue some of their competitors for infringement.
>
>From what I have read, their patent is for Proxy Servers and email scanning
>only. The CVP anti-virus architecture is not a proxy and these lawsuits
>have no bearing on most firewall anti-virus solutions.
>
>>
>>I know Raptor made an announcement over a year ago about working with
>>Trend to develop gateway based anti-virus but nothing ever seemed to
>>come from it.
>
>Trend does not seem to want to cannibalize their Viruswall proxy sales by
>partnering with firewall vendors. I am sure you will see Raptor working
>with other vendors very soon.
>
>>
>>I'm not sure that anti-virus on a firewall makes much sense (as opposed
>>to gateway anti-virus generally which is a great idea but not a
>>replacement for desktop protection).
>>
>>The problems are:
>>1. latency. the firewall is a busy box to begin with and the cycles have
>>to come from somewhere
>
>That is why the anti-virus CVP server is a separate box, to which the
>firewall redirects infectable files for a closer look. You are right that
>it causes performance hits to put it on the same box.
>
>>2. adminstration. running an application on your firewall may involve
>>allowing more people to administer the box
>
>Not in the case of a CVP server
>
>>3. security. call me paranoid, but of all the boxes on the network which
>>could be used to corral exotic viruses and hold them for inspection, the
>>firewall is not the one I would pick.
>
>Me neither, and that is not how firewall anti-virus servers were designed
>to work.
>
>
>Best Regards,
>
>Jerry Huyghe
>Product Manager
>
>eSafe Technologies http://www.esafe.com
>A division of EliaShim Inc http://www.eliashim.com
>----------------Intelligent Computer Security-----------------
>1 SW 129th Ave, Suite 105 Phone : 800.477.5177 Ext 18
>Pembroke Pines, FL 33027 Fax : 954.450.9612
>==============================================================
>
Follow-Ups:
|
|
