Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Symantec's new Firewall Applaiance

Last response: in Networking
Share
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
May 24, 2004 11:21:53 AM

Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

Hi, I just evaluated Symantec's new Appliance the 300 series and it rocks!

It has multiple technology included and wireless. I insalled it at my new business.

Take a look at http://www.symantec.com/smallbiz/gtw/
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
May 25, 2004 1:10:36 PM

Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

<emailiscool4u@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:14a143a3.0405240621.6701516b@posting.google.com...
> Hi, I just evaluated Symantec's new Appliance the 300 series and it rocks!
>
> It has multiple technology included and wireless. I insalled it at my new
business.
>
> Take a look at http://www.symantec.com/smallbiz/gtw/

What's the 320 got that the D-Link DFL-300 doesn't for $100 cheaper and
unlimited users vs. Symantec's 50 users (besides the Symantec name).
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
May 25, 2004 1:17:52 PM

Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

On Tue, 25 May 2004 09:10:36 -0700, "admin too"
<nguser2u@no.spam.AOL.com> wrote:

>> Take a look at http://www.symantec.com/smallbiz/gtw/
>
>What's the 320 got that the D-Link DFL-300 doesn't for $100 cheaper and
>unlimited users vs. Symantec's 50 users (besides the Symantec name).
Call me cynical but with all the different network gear in different
cases with apparently the same PCB in there it is getting a little
weird.

I had an SMC access point, got a Belkin access point, surprisingly
they both have the same software. I understand it's about the same as
the Linksys model which is surprisingly similar to the Dlink model,
similar enough you can use one or the other firmware.

Remember the way expensive Sonicwall, and the much cheaper Webramp,
which were suspiciously similar?

I wonder what the Symantec thing is same as?
Related resources
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
May 25, 2004 8:42:34 PM

Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

On Tue, 25 May 2004 09:10:36 -0700, admin too spoketh

>
><emailiscool4u@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:14a143a3.0405240621.6701516b@posting.google.com...
>> Hi, I just evaluated Symantec's new Appliance the 300 series and it rocks!
>>
>> It has multiple technology included and wireless. I insalled it at my new
>business.
>>
>> Take a look at http://www.symantec.com/smallbiz/gtw/
>
>What's the 320 got that the D-Link DFL-300 doesn't for $100 cheaper and
>unlimited users vs. Symantec's 50 users (besides the Symantec name).
>

The Symantec box is basically a "version 2" of their 100 and 200(R)
models, which is the same as the Nexland boxes (Symantec bought out
Nexland).

Although I cannot state with absolute certainty, the Symantec boxes
doesn't have a user limit. It's a "recommended" limit based on the CPU
in the box.

Other than that, it seems like the D-Link box as at least one advantage
in that it has an actual DMZ port (interface), while the Symantec box
uses the same old "define one LAN IP as DMZ" that is so wrong... It also
looks like the D-Link box has better access control features for tighter
control of traffic between the three interfaces...

Lars M. Hansen
www.hansenonline.net
Remove "bad" from my e-mail address to contact me.
"If you try to fail, and succeed, which have you done?"
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
June 3, 2004 10:31:01 PM

Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

I have a D-Link DFL-300 Firewall/VPN router but I wouldn't recommend
it. I'm not to savy with networking but know enough to get by so I
could not be using it correctly or to it's maximum. But my issue is
that the DFL-300 has a hard time renewing IP address when ever the ISP
changes IP address on the DSL/Cable modem. I have to manually renew
it myself most of the time. Though sometimes I'm lucky and the DFL
will renew it automatically but that's like once very 10 times I
manually renew it. Then again I've also heard that the DFL has a hard
time working with BellSouth FastAccess DSL because of the Westel
modems they use. Another issue is that the DFL-300 doesn't work when
you are trying to connect to from another NAT. You have to have a
public IP address for it work correctly. So bascially you'll have to
get a direct connection to the internet to be able to VPN into the
DFL. I've tried using the Windows XP VPN setup D-Link says to do but
they failed to mention that you have to be connected directly to the
internet and not behind some kind of NAT or other firewall unless the
firewall has VPN capabilities also. If somebody knows something I
don't please share it. My e-mail is bob.lee@apcsolution.com any help
would be greatful. Until I find out something diffrent I'm stuck on
how horrible the DFL works, and yes I've got the latest firmware and
it has not helped out much. So over all if I could have the choice
again on getting the DFL-300 or a more popular brand like SonicWall or
NetScreen I would go with the more popular and pay more with out the
headache with the DFL-300. Even the D-Link tech support didn't want
to help me because they said they are only aware of a direct
connection when it comes to VPN unless you use another DFL to connect
to another DFL. Just my opinions here. Thanks.

Bob
Lars M. Hansen <badnews@hansenonline.net> wrote in message news:<net6b0t2niukfpvp5pprib0sgiv7t1m9iv@4ax.com>...
> On Tue, 25 May 2004 09:10:36 -0700, admin too spoketh
>
> >
> ><emailiscool4u@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:14a143a3.0405240621.6701516b@posting.google.com...
> >> Hi, I just evaluated Symantec's new Appliance the 300 series and it rocks!
> >>
> >> It has multiple technology included and wireless. I insalled it at my new
> business.
> >>
> >> Take a look at http://www.symantec.com/smallbiz/gtw/
> >
> >What's the 320 got that the D-Link DFL-300 doesn't for $100 cheaper and
> >unlimited users vs. Symantec's 50 users (besides the Symantec name).
> >
>
> The Symantec box is basically a "version 2" of their 100 and 200(R)
> models, which is the same as the Nexland boxes (Symantec bought out
> Nexland).
>
> Although I cannot state with absolute certainty, the Symantec boxes
> doesn't have a user limit. It's a "recommended" limit based on the CPU
> in the box.
>
> Other than that, it seems like the D-Link box as at least one advantage
> in that it has an actual DMZ port (interface), while the Symantec box
> uses the same old "define one LAN IP as DMZ" that is so wrong... It also
> looks like the D-Link box has better access control features for tighter
> control of traffic between the three interfaces...
>
> Lars M. Hansen
> www.hansenonline.net
> Remove "bad" from my e-mail address to contact me.
> "If you try to fail, and succeed, which have you done?"
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
June 4, 2004 6:25:39 AM

Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

On 3 Jun 2004 18:31:01 -0700, Bob S. Lee spoketh

>I have a D-Link DFL-300 Firewall/VPN router but I wouldn't recommend
>it. I'm not to savy with networking but know enough to get by so I
>could not be using it correctly or to it's maximum. But my issue is
>that the DFL-300 has a hard time renewing IP address when ever the ISP
>changes IP address on the DSL/Cable modem.

My comments with regards to the D-Link and Symantec box should not be
considered to be anything else than a comparison of features, and in no
way a recommendation one way or the other.

Lars M. Hansen
www.hansenonline.net
Remove "bad" from my e-mail address to contact me.
"If you try to fail, and succeed, which have you done?"
!