Search: Home Bugtraq Vulnerabilities Mailing Lists Jobs Tools Beta Programs
Firewalls
Re: Enterprise Gigabit Firewall Mar 23 2006 08:25AM
harsh_verma sify com (1 replies)
Before going for any other product make sure you checkout this link :

http://www.watchguard.com/products/x2500.asp

It can cater up to following requirements :

1) upto 500 Users

2) IPS

3) upto 400 Branch office VPN

4) Mobile User VPN tunnels 1,000 also PPTP with IPSEC

5)spamBlocker

6) WebBlocker URL Filtering

AND many more...simple GUI ...Higher capabilites..Also I dont think you need a Dedicated Firewall Guy for this ...A good network Guy with little training can manage this.

vtlists (at) wyae (dot) de [email concealed]:

> Greetings!

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 15:34:24 +0530

"3 shool" <3shool (at) gmail (dot) com [email concealed]> wrote:

>

> We are planning to purchase an Enterprise Firewall for our Head

> Quarters. I have been doing some research recently on various possible

> options. I do have budget restrictions and that is one important

> factor which is going to influence management's decision.

Use the firewall brand you or your staff know inside-out. If you do not

have a knowledgeable firewall man, get one first.

> 1. Establish site-to-site VPN between our 4 branch locations

> 2. Establish client-to-site VPN for roaming users

> 3. Should support 500 Internet users at HO

...which probably can be managed by nearly any firewall appliance

above DSL-router level.

"500 users" is quite a bit variable. There are worlds between 500 people

just receiving a few text mails and occasionally surfing after office

hours - and 500 people doing high-turnover photo/audio/video editing and

-sharing via the web. The type of usage and speed of your uplink is at

least as interesting as the pure number of users.

> 4. Has a Gateway Antivirus, IPS and Content Filtering

Well, here we are - meet THE area of sales fog throwing and THE

performance bump. There are BIG differences in technique used,

effectivity and performance impact.

Gateway-AV sometimes is just a small daemon checking wether the client

has a current AV system installed and running (like Sonicwall did in the

past and probably still is doing) - and no virus filtering at all on the

FW itself. Or it could be a complete AV intercepting all common

protocols and unpacking/scanning/repacking all.

Similar the IPS: ranging from a few trivial attack schemes (smurf

attack, ping of death, syn-flooding - SonicWall is listing 22

"signatures") to a fully-blown in-line IDS. The first is comparatively

cheap, the latter (Snort-Inline with all signatures enabled) nearly is

impossible to scale to scan a saturated 1Gbit/s line without missing

packets.

Content filtering is similar in range: from just blocking a few IPs/URLs

up to weighed keyword scan and image classification. Thus similar range

on impact.

Especially for email you'll usually be much better off with a separate

email gate with RBL/AV/spamfilter than with trying to cover it with an

all-in-one FW/AV/Email/IDS/VPN/ContentFilter/Proxy/CoffeeCooking/...

appliance.

Similar for HTTP - especially as content filter usually call for a

separate system anyway.

> Optionally, we also plan to move our SAP servers on this firewall in a

> new zone. We would opt this only if the firewall provides us gigabit

> throughput for our SAP servers.

*Please* *DO* leave your key ERP systems in the back of your LAN -

better protect it by a separate firewall. Do not push them into the

front lines of your defense. That would be a Bad Idea(TM).

On an internet firewall AV/content filtering can make sense and will eat

a lot of performance - but you usually have a very limited uplink

(usually single-digit Mbit/s) anyway. For a backend firewall you just

need a stateful packet filter - but one that can can handle Gbit/s and

many simultaneous connections.

> For this solution I have been thinking of ISS, SonicWALL, Checkpoint

> and Netscreen. It would be great if the list could put their thoughts

> on what would be ideal for our scenario.

Choose whatever you are familiar with. If you are not familiar with

firewalling and designing secure networks, hire a colleague who is.

Buying a system without someone capable of handling it and incidents

around it will give you just a dead iron. A firewall is a (key)point of

network control - but useless if noone is (capable of) controlling it.

> I have also heard that

> SonicWALL has a gigabit firewall model, Pro 5060. The price seems to

> be really low compared to Checkpoint+Nokia, but would SonicWALL 5060

> be a good option?

None will, unless you have the man and knowledge to handle it. Comparing

such FW systems without knowing their inner workings is nearly

impossible, even if the sales brochures are boasting similar technical

terms.

One example just highlighting anti virus measures - that of course are

all included in the FW according to brochures: CheckPoint only has

INTERFACES for transparently hooking up HTTP/SMTP AV systems - but

usually none installed on the machine. SonicWall has (had?) just a check

wether an AV system is installed on the client wanting to access the

internet, no AV installed on the FW box itself.

In contrast to this Astaro has full transparent proxies (e.g. the HTTP

one is squid based) with ClamAV and Kaspersky AV running on the box,

in parallel to Cobion URL filtering plus a complete Snort IDS. Sound

great, doesn't it? Similar is the dramatic drop in throughput. I've

seen boxes capable of multi-100Mbit/s firewalling breaking down to

effective few-kbit/s rates because of such setups...

And all those nice AV/URL/Content/SPAM filtering meachanisms will be

useless on a firewall if you are using encrypted protocols.

First clearly define your needs - only after that start looking into

possible solutions. With asking (only) for a (all-in-one) firewall you

deprived yourself e.g. of a three-box-solution (http proxy + email gate

+ packet filter). Maybe you even already have such a system running.

Open source is an option - again, if you have the knowledge in your

staff to do so.

Again:

You FIRST need the man - the system choice will follow automatically.

If you do not have (and do not intend to hire) the knowledge you need to

properly run a gate, outsourcing the internet gate to a managed security

service might be another option. But have a close look at the SLAs -

especially at response AND solution times as well as on

responsibilities/fines.

Good luck!

Volker

--

Volker Tanger http://www.wyae.de/volker.tanger/

--------------------------------------------------

vtlists (at) wyae (dot) de [email concealed] PGP Fingerprint

378A 7DA7 4F20 C2F3 5BCC 8340 7424 6122 BB83 B8CB

<pre>Before going for any other product make sure you checkout this link<br>:

http://www.watchguard.com/products/x2500.asp

It can cater up to<br>following requirements :

1) upto 500 Users

2) IPS

3) upto 400<br>Branch office VPN

4) Mobile User VPN tunnels 1,000 also PPTP with<br>IPSEC

5)spamBlocker

6) WebBlocker URL Filtering

AND many<br>more...simple GUI ...Higher capabilites..Also I dont think you need a<br>Dedicated Firewall Guy for this ...A good network Guy with little<br>training can manage this.

vtlists (at) wyae (dot) de [email concealed]:

> Greetings!

On<br>Wed, 22 Mar 2006 15:34:24 +0530

"3 shool" <3shool (at) gmail (dot) com [email concealed]><br>wrote:

>

> We are planning to purchase an Enterprise Firewall for our<br>Head

> Quarters. I have been doing some research recently on various<br>possible

> options. I do have budget restrictions and that is one<br>important

> factor which is going to influence management's<br>decision.

Use the firewall brand you or your staff know inside-out.<br>If you do not

have a knowledgeable firewall man, get one first.

><br>1. Establish site-to-site VPN between our 4 branch locations

> 2.<br>Establish client-to-site VPN for roaming users

> 3. Should support 500<br>Internet users at HO

...which probably can be managed by nearly any<br>firewall appliance

above DSL-router level.

"500 users" is quite a<br>bit variable. There are worlds between 500 people

just receiving a few<br>text mails and occasionally surfing after office

hours - and 500 people<br>doing high-turnover photo/audio/video editing and

-sharing via the web.<br>The type of usage and speed of your uplink is at

least as interesting<br>as the pure number of users.

> 4. Has a Gateway Antivirus, IPS<br>and Content Filtering

Well, here we are - meet THE area of sales fog<br>throwing and THE

performance bump. There are BIG differences in<br>technique used,

effectivity and performance impact.

Gateway-AV<br>sometimes is just a small daemon checking wether the client

has a<br>current AV system installed and running (like Sonicwall did in the

past<br>and probably still is doing) - and no virus filtering at all on the

FW<br>itself. Or it could be a complete AV intercepting all common

protocols<br>and unpacking/scanning/repacking all.

Similar the IPS: ranging from a<br>few trivial attack schemes (smurf

attack, ping of death, syn-flooding -<br>SonicWall is listing 22

"signatures") to a fully-blown in-line IDS. The<br>first is comparatively

cheap, the latter (Snort-Inline with all<br>signatures enabled) nearly is

impossible to scale to scan a saturated<br>1Gbit/s line without missing

packets.

Content filtering is similar<br>in range: from just blocking a few IPs/URLs

up to weighed keyword scan<br>and image classification. Thus similar range

on impact.

Especially<br>for email you'll usually be much better off with a separate

email gate<br>with RBL/AV/spamfilter than with trying to cover it with an

all-in-one<br>FW/AV/Email/IDS/VPN/ContentFilter/Proxy/CoffeeCooking/...

appliance.

<br>
Similar for HTTP - especially as content filter usually call for<br>a

separate system anyway.

> Optionally, we also plan to move our<br>SAP servers on this firewall in a

> new zone. We would opt this only if<br>the firewall provides us gigabit

> throughput for our SAP<br>servers.

*Please* *DO* leave your key ERP systems in the back of your<br>LAN -

better protect it by a separate firewall. Do not push them into<br>the

front lines of your defense. That would be a Bad Idea(TM).

On<br>an internet firewall AV/content filtering can make sense and will eat

a<br>lot of performance - but you usually have a very limited<br>uplink

(usually single-digit Mbit/s) anyway. For a backend firewall you<br>just

need a stateful packet filter - but one that can can handle Gbit/s<br>and

many simultaneous connections.

> For this solution I have<br>been thinking of ISS, SonicWALL, Checkpoint

> and Netscreen. It would<br>be great if the list could put their thoughts

> on what would be ideal<br>for our scenario.

Choose whatever you are familiar with. If you are<br>not familiar with

firewalling and designing secure networks, hire a<br>colleague who is.

Buying a system without someone capable of handling<br>it and incidents

around it will give you just a dead iron. A firewall<br>is a (key)point of

network control - but useless if noone is (capable<br>of) controlling it.

> I have also heard that

> SonicWALL has a<br>gigabit firewall model, Pro 5060. The price seems to

> be really low<br>compared to Checkpoint+Nokia, but would SonicWALL 5060

> be a good<br>option?

None will, unless you have the man and knowledge to handle<br>it. Comparing

such FW systems without knowing their inner workings is<br>nearly

impossible, even if the sales brochures are boasting similar<br>technical

terms.

One example just highlighting anti virus<br>measures - that of course are

all included in the FW according to<br>brochures: CheckPoint only has

INTERFACES for transparently hooking up<br>HTTP/SMTP AV systems - but

usually none installed on the machine.<br>SonicWall has (had?) just a check

wether an AV system is installed on<br>the client wanting to access the

internet, no AV installed on the FW<br>box itself.

In contrast to this Astaro has full transparent proxies<br>(e.g. the HTTP

one is squid based) with ClamAV and Kaspersky AV running<br>on the box,

in parallel to Cobion URL filtering plus a complete Snort<br>IDS. Sound

great, doesn't it? Similar is the dramatic drop in<br>throughput. I've

seen boxes capable of multi-100Mbit/s firewalling<br>breaking down to

effective few-kbit/s rates because of such<br>setups...

And all those nice AV/URL/Content/SPAM filtering<br>meachanisms will be

useless on a firewall if you are using encrypted<br>protocols.

First clearly define your needs - only after that start<br>looking into

possible solutions. With asking (only) for a (all-in-one)<br>firewall you

deprived yourself e.g. of a three-box-solution (http proxy<br>+ email gate

+ packet filter). Maybe you even already have such a<br>system running.

Open source is an option - again, if you have the<br>knowledge in your

staff to do so.

Again:

You FIRST need the man<br>- the system choice will follow automatically.

If you do not have<br>(and do not intend to hire) the knowledge you need to

properly run a<br>gate, outsourcing the internet gate to a managed security

service might<br>be another option. But have a close look at the SLAs -

especially at<br>response AND solution times as well as<br>on

responsibilities/fines.

Good luck!

Volker

--

Volker<br>Tanger <br>http://www.wyae.de/volker.tanger/

-------------------------------------<br>-------------

vtlists (at) wyae (dot) de [email concealed] PGP Fingerprint

378A<br>7DA7 4F20 C2F3 5BCC 8340 7424 6122 BB83 B8CB

</pre>

<A HREF="http://ads.sify.com/RealMedia/ads/click_nx.ads/mail.sify.com/sentm
ail@Bottom" target=_new>
<IMG SRC="http://ads.sify.com/RealMedia/ads/adstream_nx.ads/mail.sify.com/sen
tmail@Bottom" width=300 height=40 border=0></a>

[ reply ]
RE: Enterprise Gigabit Firewall Mar 25 2006 03:38AM
Arunodhay Koul (arunodhay logixworld com)







 

Privacy Statement
Copyright 2008, SecurityFocus