Security

Ask something
Discussion Locked

Check Point vs. Microsoft's ISA

0 helpful
3 replies

by gary.bonfante

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.
Our company is considering to upgrade our exsiting Check Point firewall to 4.1 or to implement ISA. We are an NT/200 shop and some upper management thinks your company should stay with NT products but I do not feel this is a good enough reason to switch to ISA. I do not hear good things about ISA as a product to protect your internal network. It sound like a great proxy/cache server. I know there are pro's and con's to every product. But which would be the best choice in this situation?

3 replies

by radiic

Your right ISA is good as a proxy/cache server. And thats the key you already answered your own question. I still think you need a hardened firewall in front of that proxy server. Especially since we dont know what holes havent been discovered inISA yet.

by zen37

That is my first point against ISA.

Lets face it folks, Microsoft still has no idea what real network security is. They are just starting to get it with 2000, but it's still not enough if you ask me.

Go with Check Point, definitely. If you need a cache server then take ISA. Check Point is not perfect, but it's still steps ahead of anything Microsoft has.

I said it before and I'll say it again, I'd rather shoot myself in the foot than trust Microsoft to protect my network from the Internet.

Good luck.

by ms

First of all you should upgrade to Fw-1 2000 + 3 service packs, this can sounds like security, but remember firewall is not enough !!!

This discussion is closed to new replies.