Home > Information Security Magazine > Features > Product review: Unified threat management (UTM) devices
EMAIL THIS
Information Security Magazine

  CURRENT ISSUE  

  FEATURES  

  COLUMNS  

  HOT PICK & PRODUCT REVIEWS  

  ARCHIVES  

  SUBSCRIBE/RENEW  
 

Product review: Unified threat management (UTM) devices
Issue: Jun 2007
printer-friendly
< PREV PAGE   |   1  |   2  |   3  |   4  |   5  |   6  |   7  |   8  |   9  |   10  |   11  |   12  |   NEXT PAGE  >

Feature Integration
Our final series of tests looked at how the various functional modules work together. We also determined the third-party suppliers for these modules and what noteworthy features one product has that the others do not.

We gave SonicWALL the top grade because of its superior antivirus features, protection rule flexibility and implementation of IM protection across all of its security modules. Juniper and IBM ISS scored lowest because of the difficulty in making changes to their protection rules. For example, in order to implement protection or blocking of a specific protocol, you have to hunt down the rules that apply to that protocol and make adjustments in several places in the user interface. The other products fall somewhere in between in terms of complexity.

Each product uses different combinations of home-grown and third-party security services to round out its UTM coverage. Astaro, Check Point and Juniper use SurfControl for Web content filtering, while the oth...



ers have developed their own content-filtering capabilities. Astaro uses Snort, while the others have their own IDS engines.

Astaro supplies three virus scanners--a proprietary one using the Authentium antivirus engine, another based on open-source Clam AntiVirus, and a PCI hardware-based antivirus capability from Sensory Networks. Juniper uses Kaspersky, and Check Point uses CA. IBM ISS uses Sophos, along with a second scanning algorithm that examines network behavior. SonicWALL and Fortinet have their own antivirus scanners.

The six products differ on how big a file attachment they will scan through their antivirus engines. SonicWALL claims an unlimited file size because it scans while streaming the packets, while the others are more limiting because they have to cache the files first. If performance bogs down, an administrator can automatically block files beyond a certain size. IBM ISS hides this setting in its advanced settings, while the others make it easier to adjust the maximum limit.

< PREV PAGE   |   1  |   2  |   3  |   4  |   5  |   6  |   7  |   8  |   9  |   10  |   11  |   12  |   NEXT PAGE  >





TechTarget Security Media
Information Security View this month\\'s issue and subscribe today.
Information Security Decisions Apply online for free conference admission.
SearchSecurity.com
HomeNewsMagazineMultimediaWhite PapersLearningAdviceTopicsEventsAbout Us

About Us  |  Contact Us  |  For Advertisers  |  For Business Partners  |  Site Index  |  RSS
TechTarget provides technology professionals with the information they need to perform their jobs - from developing strategy, to making cost-effective purchase decisions and managing their organizations' technology projects - with its network of technology-specific websites, events and online magazines.

TechTarget Corporate Web Site  |  Media Kits  |  Site Map




All Rights Reserved, Copyright 2003 - 2009, TechTarget | Read our Privacy Policy
  TechTarget - The IT Media ROI Experts