Re: Bluecoat Vs ISA 2004 - Network

This is a discussion on Re: Bluecoat Vs ISA 2004 - Network ; It has been a few days and my anticipation for this informative discussion has now peaked. But alas I am surprised and a little disappointed to see that there are no replies to the subject!!?!! boo hoo! "poddman" wrote in ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Re: Bluecoat Vs ISA 2004

  1. Re: Bluecoat Vs ISA 2004

    It has been a few days and my anticipation for this informative discussion
    has now peaked.
    But alas I am surprised and a little disappointed to see that there are no
    replies to the subject!!?!!
    boo hoo!


    "poddman" wrote in message
    news:42ddb1b1_3@news.melbourne.pipenetworks.com...
    > Well the question is pretty much indicated in the subject for the thread.
    > Although this is not quite a firewall question, it is related!
    > ( unless you are a buffoon and choose to think that proxys and firewalls
    > should have nothing to do with each other! )
    > I'm interested to find out the general opinion of bluecoat proxy compared
    > to ms ISA 2004.
    > I have done a little investigation into the matter, but thought it would
    > be good to have a quick discussion why either of them could be better in
    > any given scenario!
    >
    > Well I think ms isa server is great beacuse...
    >
    >
    >
    >




  2. Re: Bluecoat Vs ISA 2004

    Hello there,

    I did a test between BC and ISA2004, ISA has defently improved - console,
    http filtering, reporting etc.
    Nevertheless Bluecoat is far more "proxy" oriented, the garularity of
    filtering, ontrolling and reporting leaves ISA far behined
    Now the question is what are your needs - for a small company that needs a
    filtering of internet activity ISA is a very good answer, for a large
    company with a security policy well defined concering internet use etc, the
    BC would be much more usefull.
    The same goes for reverse proxy - if the company can invest for BC then this
    is a better solution: Secured OS, No need for patching, dedicated device for
    dedicated task, very good performances, reporting which is centrelized etc.
    if using BC i would recomend to attach the BC AV which is a second device
    that scans the traffic for viruses - it would block the virus on the
    perimeter instead of on the users PC.
    See the 2 links one for ISA the second for BC:
    http://www.isaserver.org/articles/20...parisonp1.html
    http://www.bluecoat.de/CMS/imagescms...tudieID_23.pdf

    Hope i helped,
    Asher.
    "poddman" wrote in message
    news:42e43edb$1_1@news.melbourne.pipenetworks.com. ..
    > It has been a few days and my anticipation for this informative discussion
    > has now peaked.
    > But alas I am surprised and a little disappointed to see that there are no
    > replies to the subject!!?!!
    > boo hoo!
    >
    >
    > "poddman" wrote in message
    > news:42ddb1b1_3@news.melbourne.pipenetworks.com...
    > > Well the question is pretty much indicated in the subject for the

    thread.
    > > Although this is not quite a firewall question, it is related!
    > > ( unless you are a buffoon and choose to think that proxys and firewalls
    > > should have nothing to do with each other! )
    > > I'm interested to find out the general opinion of bluecoat proxy

    compared
    > > to ms ISA 2004.
    > > I have done a little investigation into the matter, but thought it would
    > > be good to have a quick discussion why either of them could be better in
    > > any given scenario!
    > >
    > > Well I think ms isa server is great beacuse...
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >

    >
    >




+ Reply to Thread