Great Circle Associates Firewalls
(September 1997)
 

Indexed By Date: [Previous] [Next] Indexed By Thread: [Previous] [Next]

Subject: Re: [FIREWALLS] Info on Cisco Pix
From: Joseph Iacovelli <wolfboy @ earthlink . net>
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 18:42:21 -0400
To: Michael Sorbera <sorbera . rbfcu @ ibm . net>
Cc: Rodolfo Delgado Bueno <r . delgado @ ieee . org>, firewalls @ GreatCircle . COM
References: <3418119A . F8A08883 @ ieee . org> <341E9348 . 81900068 @ ibm . net>

Michael Sorbera wrote:

> Rodolfo Delgado Bueno wrote:
>
> > We are evaluating information abaut diferent firewalls but the only
> > information we found abaut Cisco Pix cames form Cisco.
> > Is this product so secure as the resaeler guaranteed?? (more than
> any
> > software firewall !?)
> > We would like to have pointers to an imparcial evaluation of this
> > product or any coments abaut it.
> > Thanks in advance
> >
> >                 Rodolfo Delgado
>
> Rodolfo,    I'm not a firewall guru by any means, but I'll lend what
> little I know.  I'm a Webmaster that's been doing a tremendous amount
> of
> research in the last 4 months on a firewall solution.  I don't like
> hearing just from marketing droids either.  I want to be able to talk
> to
> someone that has actually used the product.
>     I have an extensive security and communications background, and
> when
> I first started reading about the different firewalls, I was impressed
>
> with the theory behind the PIX.  It seemed that IF the PIX box did
> what
> CISCO claimed, that it would be awesome.
>     You can find out a bunch by looking at the companies past history.
>
> CISCO hasn't in the past put out junk. Now they have  let some buggy
> stuff out of the bag, but for the most part, what they say is what you
>
> get.  They have a good reputation that they have to uphold. ( and I
> DON't work for, or resell CISCO!)
>     I've read quite a few postings from folks that have the PIX box,
> and
> the only complaints have been from the bunch that's using the OLDER
> version of the PIX software.  The newer version seems to have fixed
> the
> bugs.  Also, keep in mind that the flash memory that stores the tables
>
> is susceptible to voltage transients that can wipe them clean.  Bottom
>
> line, if you have the PIX box plugged into a good UPS thats connected
> to
> a decent power source, and you don't go opening the box up, you'll
> probably be o'kay.
>     One word on my understanding of the packet filter vs. application
> proxy war...folks that have cut their teeth on packet filtering being
> garbage, and application proxy being the only thing that really works,
>
> are kind of like the paradigm of the swiss watchmakers that couldn't
> grasp a watch without gears...they just can't see it...
>
> Anyway, thats my very humble opinion...
>
> Michael Sorbera
> msorber @
 ibm .
 net
> Randolph-Brooks Federal Credit Union

  Rodolfo,

  I did some evalutions of PIX firewalls back in February.  The new PIX
stuff is
definitely worth looking at.  My boss and I agreed that the functionally
increased
and bugs were fixed.

- Joseph

--
Name:   Joseph Iacovelli
Email:  wolfboy @
 earthlink .
 net
Quote:  "Second best don't cut it"  - Wolverine




References:
Indexed By Date Previous: Re: Security of Laptop Computers
From: Phil Burton <philb @ thejudge . Corp . Sun . COM>
Next: Re: Ignorant Virus Hoax Question
From: John Precedo <IT @ reliant . demon . co . uk>
Indexed By Thread Previous: Re: Info on Cisco Pix
From: Paul Ferguson <ferguson @ cisco . com>
Next: Re: Info on Cisco Pix
From: "william.wells" <william . wells @ damark . com>

Google
 
Search Internet Search www.greatcircle.com