[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [FW-1] websense versus surfcontrol
In my set-up I have the following rules base. Directors@Any Any-Website Accept Any Webesense-X-List Deny Techs@Any Any-Website Accept Any Webense-Hackingsites Deny Marketing@Any Any-Webiste Accept Any Websense-Gambling/Alcohol Deny ..... etc Therefore under the current version 4 I can 't achive the same flexible web browsing policy within our company. Regards PD > -----Original Message----- > From: Hubbard, Dan [SMTP:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, October 12, 2001 3:06 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [FW-1] websense versus surfcontrol > > ***** This message originated from outside the AA ***** > > > > Peter; > > Could you please expand as to what you mean by "its is not as feature ric > to install as a UFP product" ? We have many more features in our 4.x > product than 3.x. Among them: LDAP support, UFP caching, NG support, NTLM, > transparent ID..... > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dickson, Peter > To: [email protected] > Sent: 10/10/01 4:05 AM > Subject: Re: [FW-1] websense versus surfcontrol > > We ran websense 3.11 using UFP , but since version 4 of Websense it is > not > as feature rich to install as a UFP product. > Checkpoint security server can be slow , I have ended up running several > copies of this. > 3.11 is very stable I takes non or little administration. > My set-up is > > User Authentication to f/w using radius/ secure-id > rules base set-up on a user bases to allow different access ( > can't > do this in version 4 ) > Fw-1 proxy chains onto another proxy for caching and virus > checking. > > > Regards > > PD > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Lars Troen [SMTP:[email protected]] > > Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2001 9:20 AM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [FW-1] websense versus surfcontrol > > > > ***** This message originated from outside the AA ***** > > > > Daniel, > > It's best to do this on the proxy. There are several > performance/stability > > issues when using it with firewall-1 UFP. WebSense is a nice product > and > > can > > be used along with MS Proxy Server/MS ISA Server. I haven't used > > SurfControl > > tho, but I believe their url database is much smaller than websense's. > > > > Lars > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Mailing list for discussion of Firewall-1 > > > [ <mailto:[email protected]>]On Behalf Of > Daniel > > > Morone > > > Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2001 16:12 > > > To: [email protected] > > > Subject: [FW-1] websense versus surfcontrol > > > > > > > > > I can't find an objective comparision between WebSense and > > > SurfControl. Could you please share your experience good or bad > > > with either of these products as a UFP server? Also, anybody > > > done this with HA? > > > > > > We currently implement a filter at our proxy server and are > > > interested in moving to the firewall/UFP. It appears the top > > > two contenders are WebSense and SurfControl. We may continue > > > doing reporting off the proxy logs as that's where authentication > > occurs. > > > > > > Looking for comments about: > > > - list quality > > > - administration > > > - performance > > > - stability > > > - support > > > > > > > > > ================================================================== > > > ============== > > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, please see the > instructions > > at > > > <http://www.checkpoint.com/services/mailing.html> > > > ================================================================== > > > ============== > > > > > > > > > > ======================================================================== > == > > ====== > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, please see the > instructions at > > <http://www.checkpoint.com/services/mailing.html> > > > ======================================================================== > == > > ====== > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > The information contained in or attached to this email is > intended only for the use of the individual or entity to > which it is addressed. If you are not the intended > recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the > intended recipient, you are not authorised to and must not > disclose, copy, distribute, or retain this message or any > part of it. It may contain information which is confidential > and/or covered by legal professional or other privilege (or > other rules or laws with similar effect in jurisdictions > outside England and Wales). > > The views expressed in this email are not necessarily the > views of Centrica plc, and the company, its directors, > officers or employees make no representation or accept any > liability for its accuracy or completeness unless expressly > stated to the contrary. > > > ======================================================================== > ======== > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, please see the instructions > at > <http://www.checkpoint.com/services/mailing.html> > ======================================================================== > ======== > ================================================================================ To unsubscribe from this mailing list, please see the instructions at http://www.checkpoint.com/services/mailing.html ================================================================================
|