Talk:Comparison of firewalls: Difference between revisions
Ham Pastrami (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
|||
| Line 45: | Line 45: | ||
--[[User:24.218.195.92|24.218.195.92]] 21:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC) |
--[[User:24.218.195.92|24.218.195.92]] 21:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC) |
||
Peerguardian itself is totally NOT a firewall, and couldnt be considered as one, even after a few drinks. Page does need a rewriting, pretty badly. --[[User:Hard Core Rikki|Hard Core Rikki]] ([[User talk:Hard Core Rikki|talk]]) 11:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Wrong information about Cisco IOS == |
== Wrong information about Cisco IOS == |
||
Revision as of 11:16, 25 February 2008
 | Computing Start‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Incorrect! Netfilter (iptables) _does_ support MAC address filtering.
Pretty poor. What about ZoneAlarm, Symantec, Sunbelt Kerio, Comodo and some of the other big ones?
--- Not only that, much of the information is misleading. Checkpoint's features are incorrectly listed on the page
--- --- Agreed, the Checkpoint features are either wrong or severely outdated. I'm going to update that most obvious.
No anti-virus/IDS/sniffer on windows? Poor... at best... If we're counting in add-on software for Linux (wireshark, openvpn) let's do it too for windows. Updating on that. After second analysis, pretty much all info here is incomplete at best. Even though my personal knowledge is limited to Windows and Linux, I believe that iptables supports all features listed in the comparison. Of course Windows XP not being in a server family perhaps shouldn't even be in the comparison (perhaps Windows Server family) and even then, using third-party, I believe that most features can be supported. Given that portability of Linux software, a wide range of network applications have been ported to the Win32 architecture (nmap, ethereal, name them...).
I think that this article should also mention if the firewalls in question are open source or cost money to use. Dedderek 23:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
-TODOs:
-add performance comparison tables
-add linked pages with configuration examples. This will make this page popular among network & security students & professionals.
-add more firewalls software to the tables (especially Norton Personal Firewall, BlackICE and ZoneAlarm)
-by Fenix*NBK*, 2.10.2006. (for questions email me at al4321@gmail.com)
-add iptables extentions such as NuFw
-add versions of the compared software
- separate personal firewalls from network firewalls
iptables does MAC filtering, inbound and outbound filtering.
- what about pf
- what about nufw that is a userspace firewall for linux
- what about isafer a personal free software firewall for linux
This article is WRONG. You are only comparing software based firewalls. Quality firewalls are alwasy hardware based at the enterprise level. - Define a hardware firewall...many hardware firewalls are simply standard systems in a box with a proprietary OS. (PIX for example - and some versions even use Linux). It is also important to note that we a talking about layer 3 firewalls and not at the application layer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.94.167.145 (talk) 09:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Not only wrong, but incomplete
Even if we restrict ourselves to software firewalls, where are eEye and Kaspersky and the rest?
Either a a lot of work needs to be done on this page or it needs to be severely pruned. Partial and incorrect comparisons do not serve anyone well.
--24.218.195.92 21:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Peerguardian itself is totally NOT a firewall, and couldnt be considered as one, even after a few drinks. Page does need a rewriting, pretty badly. --Hard Core Rikki (talk) 11:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Wrong information about Cisco IOS
The Cisco IOS, since 12.4 version has many new security features. Besides, Cisco IOS, is certified ICSA IPS and ICSA Firewall. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.226.235.252 (talk) 14:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)