From: sushil menon (sushilmenon2001@gmail.com)
Date: Fri Jul 25 2008 - 09:15:22 ART
i truly believe that netscreen can anyday beat off checkpoint and asa in
terms of roboust routing features like policy based, source based and source
interface based routing with virtual routers for separating routing domains.
in terms of failover when running routing protocol on firewalls the backup
routes are installed on the secondary firewall giving no downtime for
routing convergence this feature is currently not availble neither in
checkpoint nor in asa.
dmvpn support on netscreens not available on checkpoint nor on asa.
in terms of through netscreens have always stood up in the market compared
to both the vendors.
and their new ssg;s u don;t even need wan routers u can terminate almost all
kinds of wan encapsulations directly on the firewall saving cost on
infrastructure.
isp redundancy and load sharing is much controlled in netscreen in
checkpoint isp redundancy sucks big time.
just my views.
regards
sushil
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 3:51 PM, Muhammad Nasim <muhammad.nasim@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I think first time I heard that NSM did not do well for you. I heard that
> people are managing 100+ Netscreen prodcuts using NSM and it works fine for
> them : )
>
>
> 2008/7/25 Aun Raza <aun.raza@gmail.com>:
>
> you can do some real-time stuff with the ASA as well, using packet-captures
>> on the firewall itself, if you want to see asp-drops, etc, along with the
>> usual packet captures. you can also simulate a packet using the
>> packet-tracer to see how it will be processed through the box, etc. there
>> are a bunch of other tools as well.
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 10:20 PM, David Tran <davidtran_mclean@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > I am going to add more fuel to the fire !!!
>> >
>> > Yes, NetScreen is a good firewall with excellent throughput. I used to
>> > manage
>> > a pair of NetScreen/Juniper AS5200 about 3 years ago and for the most
>> part,
>> > the throughput is excellent.
>> >
>> > The issue with Netscreen is it severely lacks the tools for
>> > troubleshooting.
>> > Just like Cisco, the information is not in real-time. If I can recall
>> > correctly, it is snoop, not solaris snoop but snoop that will dump
>> > the output into a file and then you read the file. Well, if you do not
>> > have to do a lot of troubleshooting, then yes, Netscreen is the way to
>> go.
>> > As for myself, I come from tcpdump and fw monitor. I like these tools
>> > because
>> > It tells me exactly where and why the traffics get processed by the
>> > firewall
>> > on each particular interface. When you have a critical issue and
>> something
>> > is not working and need to be resolved right away, capture and snoop is
>> not
>> > a very efficient tool to solve critical issues.
>> >
>> > Netscreen also has product called Netscreen Security Manager (NSM) that
>> > is a "knock-off" of checkpoint Provider-1. In fact, the GUI
>> look-and-feel
>> > is very similar to Checpoint SmartConsole. I used this product in 2006
>> and
>> > early 2007. The product is somewhat unstable. I tried to manage a pair
>> > Netscreen via NSM and somehow the NSM lost my netscreen configuration.
>> > If my recollection is correct, I was using NSM version 2007.1 release 2.
>> > I don't know if the product has improved since but NSM is no Checkpoint
>> > Provider-1. One thing I have to give credit to Netscreen is that they
>> > don't develop NSM for Windows platform, only Linux and Solaris. I guess
>> > that's why it is much robust stable than Cisco CSM.
>> >
>> > Netscreen is a good firewall if you dont' have to make daily
>> configuration
>> > changes. If that is not the case, you're looking at something maybe
>> just
>> > a little bit than Cisco in term of policy and configuration management.
>> > Remember, Netscreen has something called "zone-based" which is similar
>> > to ASA security level.
>> >
>> > It's boiling down to what fit your environment and what you're
>> comfortable
>> > with. I am a Cisco person but I like checkpoint because of the
>> managment
>> > and logging piece.
>> >
>> > --- On Thu, 7/24/08, Abdul <rslab007@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > From: Abdul <rslab007@gmail.com>
>> > Subject: Re: ASA vs Checkpoint
>> > To: "David Tran" <davidtran_mclean@yahoo.com>
>> > Cc: joe@affirmedsystems.com, sushilmenon2001@gmail.com,
>> > Kevin.Phillips@fticonsulting.com, gabriel.bryson@minx.com,
>> > diptanshu.singh@gmail.com, beyer@optonline.net, ccielab@groupstudy.com,
>> > security@groupstudy.com
>> > Date: Thursday, July 24, 2008, 8:51 PM
>> >
>> > awh men. How can I add to such a juicy set of comments about this
>> topic.
>> > God,
>> > I don't know about you, but I'm loving reading every one's comments.
>> >
>> > Ok, here is my two cents. I come from a big financial enterprise
>> > environment
>> > that runs tons of multicast (in form of market data) through our
>> firewalls.
>> > The Financial industry is moving towards microsecond latency sensitivity
>> > where
>> > very source of delay counts negatively towards the business. We get huge
>> > micro
>> > busts of data unlike I've ever seen before (except when testing in the
>> > lab).
>> > The environment primarily was a checkpoint firewall environment. Its
>> > steadily
>> > moving towards Juniper netscreens. Here's why. Performance & Latency.
>> The
>> > checkpoints (as so many so eloquently expressed in this email trail) are
>> > feature rich, and very good with management. Especially in an
>> environment
>> > with
>> > tons of firewalls and huge policies. But they are failing when it somes
>> to
>> > performance and latency. And while complaints abound are mentioned from
>> the
>> > Security Admins about the management piece of the Netsceens, its raw
>> > performance is simply much better than the checkpoints.
>> > And they are coming around with the feature support as well.
>> >
>> >
>> > So if performance & latency is your top requirements, then maybe an
>> > evaluation
>> > between the Juniper's & ASA might be a better conversation.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 5:41 PM, David Tran <davidtran_mclean@yahoo.com
>> >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > "Recently I had a meeting with a large blue chip company that had been
>> > using checkpoint exclusively, As they were purchasing various Cisco
>> > Routers and switches from us, I was asked to attend a meeting were there
>> >
>> > security manager, who had Checkpoint believer wanted to ask a few
>> > questions about the ASA. After the Q&A session I could see that lots of
>> > what he said were related to the old Pix limitations, I then opened my
>> >
>> > laptop and connected to a ASA we have in a lab and demonstrated the ASA
>> > and let him play...They just purchased two ASA's to replace their
>> > Checkpoints."
>> >
>> > I don't know if you ever work in a large enterprise or a Managed
>> >
>> > Security Service Provider (MSSP) but I would like to know if you can
>> > convert a Checkpoint security policy with over 25,000 objects and
>> > 800 security rules on a Secureplatform gateways with 20+ interfaces.
>> > Add about 100+ crazy NAT rules in the policy and let see if you can
>> >
>> > convert this CP security policy into ASA security policy.
>> >
>> > Think you can do it? By the way, cisco TAC couldn't do it either.
>> >
>> > I had a meeting with a Cisco SE in 2005 and that he really touted
>> > both ASA and MARS on how this product are much better than CP
>> >
>> > and Juniper. After I sat him down and showed Checkpoint Provider-1
>> > and requirements for my environment. ASA and CSM could not meet
>> > the requirements.
>> >
>> > Checkpoint has lots of drawback as well but overall it is much
>> >
>> > better firewall than Cisco, especially for large enterprise and
>> > Service Providers.
>> >
>> > It's like owning a Porsche and owning a Honda Civic. Owning a Chevy is
>> > very easy. You just need to change oil, for the most part and
>> everything
>> >
>> > will
>> > be fine. Owning a Porsche is much different. You need to have the
>> money
>> > and the time to take care of that car. It is not that simple.
>> Checkpoint
>> > is
>> > the
>> > same way. Checkpoint is like a Porsche and ASA is like a Honda Civic.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --- On Wed, 7/23/08, gabriel.bryson@minx.com <gabriel.bryson@minx.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > From: gabriel.bryson@minx.com <gabriel.bryson@minx.com>
>> >
>> >
>> > Subject: RE: ASA vs Checkpoint
>> > To: joe@affirmedsystems.com, davidtran_mclean@yahoo.com,
>> > sushilmenon2001@gmail.com, Kevin.Phillips@FTIConsulting.com
>> >
>> > Cc: diptanshu.singh@gmail.com, beyer@optonline.net,
>> ccielab@groupstudy.com
>> > ,
>> > security@groupstudy.com
>> >
>> > Date: Wednesday, July 23, 2008, 4:08 PM
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > After reading along all day at what people had to say about the ASA vs
>> > Checkpoint, If I was a complete novice that went exclusively on what was
>> > said in this forum, I think I might go with the ASA?? There is a plenty
>> >
>> > said on the checkpoint side about licensing, hardware, patching
>> > problems, more expensive, not great support from the manufacturers, and
>> > all that was said about the ASA is that does not have a fantastic
>> > enterprise management solution, oh and the ASA vpn solution is rock
>> >
>> > solid???
>> > I think from my own experience the vast majority of people are put off
>> > the ASA because of the old PIX, its command line and horrible GUI (PDM),
>> > which the ASA have now revamped and replaced, making it just as easy as
>> >
>> > the Checkpoint to configure.
>> > Recently I had a meeting with a large blue chip company that had been
>> > using checkpoint exclusively, As they were purchasing various Cisco
>> > Routers and switches from us, I was asked to attend a meeting were there
>> >
>> > security manager, who had Checkpoint believer wanted to ask a few
>> > questions about the ASA. After the Q&A session I could see that lots of
>> > what he said were related to the old Pix limitations, I then opened my
>> >
>> > laptop and connected to a ASA we have in a lab and demonstrated the ASA
>> > and let him play...They just purchased two ASA's to replace their
>> > Checkpoints.
>> > PS check out the Miercom report on the ASA compared to its
>> >
>> > competitors??? Just google Miercom ASA
>> >
>> > My 2p worth
>> >
>> >
>> > Gabriel
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
>> >
>> > Joseph Brunner
>> > Sent: 23 July 2008 17:49
>> > To: 'David Tran'; 'sushil menon'; 'Phillips, Kevin'
>> > Cc: 'dip'; 'Bill Eyer'; ccielab@groupstudy.com;
>> >
>> > security@groupstudy.com
>> > Subject: RE: ASA vs Checkpoint
>> >
>> > David,
>> >
>> > Time and time again you save me millions of brain cells. Thank you...
>> >
>> > God Cisco has its sh*t in a twist... that server is massive to not be
>> >
>> > able
>> > to run CSM like google.com...
>> >
>> > WOW
>> >
>> > ;)
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
>> >
>> > David Tran
>> > Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 10:30 AM
>> > To: sushil menon; Phillips, Kevin
>> > Cc: dip; Bill Eyer; ccielab@groupstudy.com; security@groupstudy.com
>> >
>> > Subject: RE: ASA vs Checkpoint
>> >
>> > "CSM is still new but yet another piece that Checkpoint and Juniper have
>> > been doing for a while. Cisco never really offered a solution to manage
>> > firewalls, maintain objects, and standard policies across and
>> >
>> > enterprise."
>> >
>> > This product is absolutely horrendous. I installed it on a Windows 2003
>> > Enterprise
>> > Edition with 16GB RAM and quad processors with quad-core and it is
>> > extremely
>> > slow.
>> > Totally unworkable across the VPN. The system becomes very slugglish
>> >
>> > after
>> > 5
>> > users
>> > logging into the system. At the moment, I am having issues with
>> > installing
>> > Performance Monitor on the CSM. In other words, it is a broken product.
>> >
>> > "Companies may
>> > not be ready to jump into buying a SIM as it may not be a requirement
>> >
>> > for that company but being able to store firewall logs and search for
>> > them is a core function of an enterprise firewall product"
>> >
>> > Could not disagree with you more on this. The good thing about
>> > Checkpoint
>> >
>> > centralize
>> > management is that the management piece can manage multiple firewalls.
>> > If
>> > you
>> > have
>> > multiple firewalls between the source and destination, the log, in real
>> > time,
>> > can tell you
>> > which firewalls accept the traffics and which one drop the traffics.
>> >
>> > When
>> > it comes to trouble shooting, nothing beat tcpdump. Cisco capture
>> > function
>> > is
>> > no where near tcpdump capabilities.
>> >
>> > "MARS is a great product if you want a SIM"
>> >
>> > If you have a "cisco" shop, then MARS is a great solution for you.
>> >
>> > However,
>> > if you
>> > have a heterogeneous environment, ArcSight or EIQ is a much superior
>> > solution.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --- On Wed, 7/23/08, Phillips, Kevin <Kevin.Phillips@FTIConsulting.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > From: Phillips, Kevin <Kevin.Phillips@FTIConsulting.com>
>> >
>> > Subject: RE: ASA vs Checkpoint
>> > To: "David Tran" <davidtran_mclean@yahoo.com>, "sushil
>> > menon"
>> > <sushilmenon2001@gmail.com>
>> >
>> > Cc: "dip" <diptanshu.singh@gmail.com>, "Bill Eyer"
>> > <beyer@optonline.net>,
>> > ccielab@groupstudy.com, security@groupstudy.com
>> >
>> > Date: Wednesday, July 23, 2008, 9:41 AM
>> >
>> > This is quite a funny post as I have been beating up my Cisco SE's on
>> > exactly this point. I think they get it, but Cisco doesn't.
>> >
>> > A few years ago if you wanted a firewall, hands down it was Checkpoint
>> >
>> > partly because of their AI. Today they all do the same, they pass or
>> > deny traffic based on defined criteria. Sure one firewall may be faster
>> > than the next vendors, but what is setting it apart for me is the
>> > management.
>> >
>> >
>> > MARS is a great product if you want a SIM, but if you want firewall
>> > events then you just need logs, Checkpoint and Juniper get this and have
>> > been doing this for years. Cisco never really offered this in their
>> >
>> > product line and when they decided to add it they went leaps and bounds
>> > ahead by going to MARS. MARS is not a firewall log tool, it is a SIM,
>> > it does event correlation and a lot of other features. Companies may
>> >
>> > not be ready to jump into buying a SIM as it may not be a requirement
>> > for that company but being able to store firewall logs and search for
>> > them is a core function of an enterprise firewall product.
>> >
>> > CSM is still new but yet another piece that Checkpoint and Juniper have
>> >
>> > been doing for a while. Cisco never really offered a solution to manage
>> > firewalls, maintain objects, and standard policies across and
>> > enterprise.
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
>> >
>> > David Tran
>> > Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 7:01 AM
>> > To: sushil menon
>> > Cc: dip; Bill Eyer; ccielab@groupstudy.com; security@groupstudy.com
>> >
>> > Subject: Re: ASA vs Checkpoint
>> >
>> > "checkpoint support sucks big time as compared to cisco. see when u get
>> > stuck
>> > in live network all u care of some good guys to help u out of it this is
>> > where
>> > no one can touch cisco for sure."
>> >
>> >
>> > This part I completely agree with you. Checkpoint TAC supports suck big
>> > time. This is
>> > one area where Cisco is really good at.
>> >
>> > --- On Wed, 7/23/08, sushil menon <sushilmenon2001@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > From: sushil menon <sushilmenon2001@gmail.com>
>> > Subject: Re: ASA vs Checkpoint
>> > To: "David Tran" <davidtran_mclean@yahoo.com>
>> >
>> > Cc: "dip" <diptanshu.singh@gmail.com>, "Bill Eyer"
>> > <beyer@optonline.net>,
>> > ccielab@groupstudy.com, security@groupstudy.com
>> >
>> > Date: Wednesday, July 23, 2008, 2:17 AM
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > i think it depends on what are u looking for.
>> >
>> > from cisco point of view the few advantages and disadvantages i feel.
>> >
>> > cisco is lot cheaper than checkpoint. in checkpoint the biggest pain is
>> >
>> > the
>> > licensing model. u need license for everything so the cost of it goes
>> > very
>> > high.since it;s a pure software u will have to invest on hardware again
>> > like
>> > if u are thinking of secure platform then good ibm or hp server plus
>> >
>> > their
>> > support as well.
>> >
>> > checkpoint support sucks big time as compared to cisco. see when u get
>> > stuck
>> > in live network all u care of some good guys to help u out of it this is
>> > where
>> > no one can touch cisco for sure.
>> >
>> >
>> > though checkpoint is famous for it;s gui that;s the only best thing i
>> > find in
>> > it. because it can be deployed on many different hardware configuration
>> > on
>> > different hardware is tough because for most of the hardware u don;t
>> >
>> > even get
>> > a documentation for free like nokia and crossbeam u need login access to
>> > just
>> > view the documentation there are hardly any good configuration examples
>> > that u
>> > could use.
>> >
>> > there is nothing very great that checkpoint does that cisco cannot do.
>> >
>> > except
>> > for few things like running vpns and running protocols in active/active
>> > mode.
>> >
>> > but whereas vpns are concerned i find cisco vpns much scalable and easy.
>> > in
>> > checkpoint u have something called as communities and according to
>> >
>> > communities
>> > u will have to decide u want to have a mesh or star like vpns. in asa
>> > it;s
>> > upto u can configure the way u want need not worry abt any communities.
>> >
>> > ofcourse for good management point of view seeing the logs in nice
>> >
>> > format and
>> > all u can go for checkpoint.
>> >
>> > if u are really looking for options i would say rather try juniper or
>> > fortinet. they are even better than both cisco and checkpoint.
>> >
>> > especially fortinet provides everything in a single asic based box. they
>> >
>> > have
>> > got ips,anti-spam,url-filtering,anti-virus,content-filtering all in a
>> > single
>> > box and their license cost is very less . their anti-virus has been
>> > winning 3
>> > consecutive awards in anti-virus bulletin.
>> >
>> > they can do souce based routing,., source interface based routing,
>> > policy
>> > based routing and many more features .
>> >
>> > they have got their fortimanager like checkpoint to manage all the boxes
>> > from
>> > a single point and they have a fortilog analyser for consolidating all
>> >
>> > the
>> > logs at a single place.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 7:56 AM, David Tran <davidtran_mclean@yahoo.com
>> >
>> > 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
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > _______________________________________________________________________
>> > > Subscription information may be found at:
>> >
>> > > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________________________________
>> > Subscription information may be found at:
>> >
>> > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________________________________
>> > Subscription information may be found at:
>> >
>> > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc.
>> > www.surfcontrol.com
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________________________________
>> > Subscription information may be found at:
>> > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> aun raza
>> pgp: 0x95A74924 (pgp.mit.edu)
>> web: aunraza.com
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________________________________
>> Subscription information may be found at:
>> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Muhammad Nasim
> Network Engineer
> Saudi Arabia
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Aug 04 2008 - 06:11:57 ART