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

Re: [Full-Disclosure] PIX vs CheckPoint

To: Laurent LEVIER <llevier@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] PIX vs CheckPoint
From: Cyril Guibourg <plonk-o-matic@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 10:29:54 +0200

Laurent LEVIER <llevier@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

Hi L2,

> At the NAT level, you have to know Pix is a NATing box and everything
> it does is based on NAT.

AFAIK, a PIX can operate without NAT. Did I miss something ?

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [Full-Disclosure] PIX vs CheckPoint
  - From: Jaroslaw Sajko

References:
- [Full-Disclosure] PIX vs CheckPoint
  - From: Darkslaker
- Re: [Full-Disclosure] PIX vs CheckPoint
  - From: Laurent LEVIER

Prev by Date: Re: [Full-Disclosure] Tools for checking for presence of adware remotely
Next by Date: [Full-Disclosure] DSL router Prestige 650HW-31
Previous by thread: Re: [Full-Disclosure] PIX vs CheckPoint
Next by thread: Re: [Full-Disclosure] PIX vs CheckPoint
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread