Branch Office Firewalls
Posted by
John H. Sawyer
May 03, 2005
Tags: Check Point Software Technologies Firewall-1 Secure Platform, CyberGuard Corp. TSP 7100 Security Appliance, DataPower XS40 XML Security Gateway, Fortinet FortiGate 3600, Fortinet FortiGate-800 Antivirus Firewall version 2.8, IDS, IPS, Ingate Systems' Ingate Firewall 1200, Internet Security Systems Proventia M50 Integrated Security Appli-ance, Juniper Networks NetScreen-ISG 2000, NIDS, NIPS, Nokia's IP260/265, Reactivity XML Secu-rity Gateway and Manager 2400 Series, SQL injection, Sarvega XML Guardian Gateway v5.0.2, Secure Computing Corp. Sidewinder G2 Security Appliance Model 2150, Secure Computing Sidewinder G2 and Symantec Corp. Symantec Gateway Security 5440 Appliance, ServGate Technologies' Edge-Force M30, SonicWall Pro 5060c with SonicOS 3.0 Enhanced 5060, Symantec Corp. Symantec Gateway Security 5460, Symantec Corp.'s Gateway Security 5420, VPN, WatchGuard Technologies' Firebox X2500, Web Services, Web filtering, XML firewall, XML security, XML security gateway XML gateway, and ZyXel's ZyWall 70, anti-spam, antivirus, branch-office firewall, centralized firewall management, denial of service, eep inspection, heck Point Software Technologies' Check Point Express, high-availability, security, stateful failover, stateful filtering, Access Control, Data Networking & Management, Data Protection, Firewalls, Managed Firewall and Intrusion Detection, Network security appliances, Networking and Telecom, Other, Security and Privacy, Software and Web Development, firewall
Channel: Other, Networking & Mgmt, Data Protection
|
Firewall Blowout
Read More
|
|
Our basic network configuration for testing involved three network spaces: the ISP-provided network outside the firewall, the LAN inside the firewall and the corporate network available through a VPN (see "How We Tested Branch-Office Firewalls," for specifics).
Similarities and Differences
The invitations we issue for comparative reviews spell out our minimum requirements, grading criteria and basic test scenario. The vendors decide which products to submit. Although we aim for apples-to-apples comparisons, there's room for variability. Some go toward the top end and take a hit on price, banking on better features and performance. Others meet the bare-bones requirements and hope a low price will give them a boost. Most try to find the middle ground. This self-selection exercise can be a fascinating window into how a vendor will spec out bids for real customers.
Related Reading
More data-networking-management Insights
RSS
Email
Print
Share
