From: Magmax (magmax@bigpond.net.au)
Date: Wed Jul 23 2008 - 09:12:40 ART
Hi There
Cisco ASA vs Checkpoint
I think if Cisco can come up with good management software they will be
laughing over how much enterprise customer will look at moving to Cisco
Nokia, Checkpoint, Crossbeam all these hardware and software vendors have
loads of bugs in their software and these days nokia, crossbeam hardware
issues are too common
Even from support prospective you cannot compare them to Cisco TAC.I deploy
Checkpoint VSX running on crossbeam x series or nokia for enterprises
customers. If I Cisco put some money in Security they will gain this market
share
Just my two cents
Ubaid
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of Bill
Eyer
Sent: Wednesday, 23 July 2008 8:03 PM
To: davidtran_mclean@yahoo.com
Cc: dip; ccielab@groupstudy.com; security@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: ASA vs Checkpoint
David,
SecurePlatform is likely the direction we will go at the next hardware
refresh.
Bill
David Tran wrote:
> "
> But there are downsides. It is software running on a computer, so you
> have some form of Linux or Windows under the hood. We run ours on a
> Nokia platform. The model we currently use is diskless, but some of our
> older ones had a harddisk that seem to fail regularly. Plus keeping up
> with patching means not only patching Checkpoint, but also patching
> IPSO, which is Nokia's version of Linux."
>
> You should be using Secureplatform instead of Nokia. With
> Secureplatform, you go to a single vendor, Checkpoint,
> for support with both OS and Checkpoint. Nokia is overprice
> and overrated.
>
> Ins't RAID-1 supposed to resolve this issue? My Secureplatform
> has been up and running for almost five years with two reboot,
> because I upgraded it to HFA_17 and HFA_20.
>
> You will run into the same thing with Cisco as
> well. I can tell
> you from Pix version 7.2(x) alone, there are about 28 different
> versions out there.
>
> Checkpoint FireFly is high-end running on IBM x3650.
>
> Checkpoint can terminate VPN in active/active but Cisco ASA
> can not,
>
> Checkpoint is expensive and cisco is not
>
> Imagine managing a firewall with 20+ interfaces with Cisco, a
> very difficult task indeed. There is no cisco centralized
> management like CP Provider-1 either, unless you count
> Cisco Security Manager which run on crappy windows. This
> product is horrible. Even Cisco TAC recommends Solsoft
> over Cisco CSM.
>
> If you have the money, go with Checkpoint. Otherwise, go
> with Cisco.
>
> As someone put it, Checkpoint firewalls is like driving a Porsche
> or Audi while Cisco is like driving a Ford Pinto. Just like
> everything in life, you get what you pay for.
>
>
> --- On *Tue, 7/22/08, Bill Eyer /<beyer@optonline.net>/* wrote:
>
> From: Bill Eyer <beyer@optonline.net>
> Subject: Re: ASA vs Checkpoint
> To: "dip" <diptanshu.singh@gmail.com>
> Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com, security@groupstudy.com
> Date: Tuesday, July 22, 2008, 7:34 PM
>
> Dip,
>
> For what it's worth, at our company we use a mix of Checkpoint and
Cisco
> firewalls, the ASA, FWSM for 6500 and some older PIX units. This is
> deliberate design solution on my part to provide diversity.
>
> Both manufacturers have advantages and dis-advantages, and I will give
> you my rant on both of them.
>
> The Checkpoint is great for a couple of things. The Management
> interface is still the best. Even I, who have never been to school on
> it can easily configure and push policies. The logging system, while
> proprietory, is really nice.
> If my firewall engineers had their way, we
> would use only Checkpoint firewalls.
>
> But there are downsides. It is software running on a computer, so you
> have some form of Linux or Windows under the hood. We run ours on a
> Nokia platform. The model we currently use is diskless, but some of
our
> older ones had a harddisk that seem to fail regularly. Plus keeping
up
> with patching means not only patching Checkpoint, but also patching
> IPSO, which is Nokia's version of Linux. Our Checkpoint reps recently
> told me they are coming out with their own appliance, that will
feature
> integrated patching.
>
> Checkpoint is also "rental software". To legally keep it running you
>
> have to re-license it periodically. You also have to have a dedicated
> PC as a management server, and yes this has it's own license. Lastly
> Checkpoint support is really expensive, although third party support
may
> be available from the
> appliance manufacturer. We get ours from Nokia.
> Unlike Cisco TAC, Nokia does draw the line at some support requests.
> For example I asked them to walk me through installing the R55 patch
and
> they told me I had to hire a VAR to do the work. I got around it but
it
> was painful.
>
> Smart Defense, which is their version of IPS also adds extra costs and
> since it is implemented in software, has a dramatic effect on
throughput.
>
> All and all it adds up to a higher cost than ASA.
>
> ASA wraps good things into a single box, and the cost is lower.
> However, the management gui is not as easy to use (although recent
> generations are definitely better). Logging is also horrible. The
logs
> on the built in gui are not nearly as nice as Checkpoints, so you will
> probably find the need for some type of Enterprise logging tool. The
> good new is that it is syslog so any enterprise SIM tool should work.
> We actually
> use CS-MARS, but the staff still doesn't like it as much as
> Checkpoint.
>
> That's my rant anyway. If you have the money to pay for it,
Checkpoint
> is really nice, but support is higher, both in cost and in time.
>
> In our case in the Data Center we use Checkpoint as a perimeter
> firewall, then sandwich our DMZ between the outside and inside
> firewalls. The theory is that if there is a vulnerability in one
> manufacturer a hacker can't exploit it to get all the way inside the
> enterprise. The inside firewalls are FWSM blades. For small sites we
> use ASA because cost is the driving factor there.
>
> Long post, and maybe off topic, but I am certain that other engineers
> will have their own opinions.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Bill
>
> dip wrote:
> > Hi Guys,
> >
> > i have to evaluate between Cisco ASA and Checkpoint for a big
enterprise.
> I
> > think this is a better place to ask since lot of
> people would have worked
> on
> > both products.
> >
> > Please provide me all the plus points which you saw in checkpoint
which
> you
> > think currently Cisco ASA doesn't have or vice versa.
> > Also what feature's checkpoint has which you think should be must in
> cisco
> > Firewalls .
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks
> > Dip
> >
> >
> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Aug 04 2008 - 06:11:56 ART