Subject: FWTK vs CISCO PIX520

From: WEBER_Rene/[email-masked]
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 16:39:39 +0100

[To be removed from this list send the message "unsubscribe fwtk-users" in the
BODY of a mail message to [email-masked].]

Hi all,

Since 1995 we are running a firewall using FWTK.
My company now wants to replace it by a CISCO PIX520, saying its easier to
manage and has better performance.

Has anyone some information comparing these two firewall solutions?
Has anyone information about the CISCO PIX520 (not the official CISCO 
information).

Thanks and have a fine weekend.

Rene Weber
IT-Mgr. IEC-CO
GENEVA, Switzerland

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 19:48:01 +0300

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

nuqneH,

They are comparing 2 completely different things.
PIX is good for protecting DMZ, fwtk is much better for protecting LAN.
PIX definitely has better performance due to its architecture and not 
so deep protocol analysis. About "easier to manage" it depends what do
you mean when saying that.

> Has anyone information about the CISCO PIX520 (not the official CISCO 

                                     _     _  _  _  _      _  _
 {::} {::} {::}  CU in Hell          _| o |_ | | _|| |   / _||_|   |_ |_ |_
 (##) (##) (##)        /Arkan#iD    |_  o  _||_| _||_| /   _|  | o |_||_||_|
 [||] [||] [||]            Do i believe in Bible? Hell,man,i've seen one!

---

From: Joseph S D Yao <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 14:19:37 -0500

> Has anyone information about the CISCO PIX520 (not the official CISCO 

Of course the PIX is faster and easier to manage.  It's a glorified
router.  It does NOT do the kind of proxying that makes FWTK and others
superior.

Look at TIS [NAI] Gauntlet, ANS [UUNet] Interlock, or Eagle [Axent]
Raptor, in order of preference.

-- 
Joe Yao				[email-masked] - Joseph S. D. Yao
COSPO/OSIS Computer Support					EMT-B
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This message is not an official statement of COSPO policies.