[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Full-disclosure] Suggestion for IDS



--On Wednesday, September 28, 2005 17:48:59 +0100 "Paul S. Brown" <pol@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Wednesday 28 September 2005 16:56, Michael Holstein wrote:
> If you NAT a lot, PIX can't handle the load.  It also isn't flexible
> enough.

Huh? .. the FWSM (which is PIX and you can have 4 of them in a chassis)
can handle 100 intefaces, 5gpbs, 100k CPS, and 1M concurrent per blade.

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/modules/ps2706/ps4452/

Show me an OpenBSD system that can handle 400 interfaces, 20gbps, and 4M
connections (and can do HSRP, etc).

(I'm not trying to start an open-source "holy war" on a newsgrop .. I
use pf too, where I need the granularity -- just not on the whole
network).

I suspect the argument here has to be cost-for-cost - in the price range for a decent beefy OpenBSD box you aren't going to be using FWSMs, and I can quite believe that the PIXen in that price range don't perform - the PIX 501 is specced at 60MB/s throughput and the cheapest retail price I can find for it is $678 for the unlimited license version - for the same money you can get a beefy PC which will push quite a bit more than 60MB/s

$678? Ours were in the mid five figure range. You must be talking about SOHO units.

Paul Schmehl (pauls@xxxxxxxxxxxx)
Adjunct Information Security Officer
University of Texas at Dallas
AVIEN Founding Member
http://www.utdallas.edu/ir/security/
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/