ML
    • Recent
    • Categories
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Groups
    • Register
    • Login

    It looks like a Mac problem, but...

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved IT Discussion
    24 Posts 5 Posters 2.0k Views
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • DashrenderD
      Dashrender
      last edited by

      @kelly said in It looks like a Mac problem, but...:

      Well, the solution was no less peculiar. In my firewall config I had specified authenticated users for LAN to WAN in my work to

      What firewall?

      KellyK 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • KellyK
        Kelly @Dashrender
        last edited by

        @dashrender said in It looks like a Mac problem, but...:

        @kelly said in It looks like a Mac problem, but...:

        Well, the solution was no less peculiar. In my firewall config I had specified authenticated users for LAN to WAN in my work to

        What firewall?

        Juniper SRX.

        DashrenderD 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • dafyreD
          dafyre
          last edited by

          Nice to know it was working as intended, right? lol.

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • DashrenderD
            Dashrender @Kelly
            last edited by

            @kelly said in It looks like a Mac problem, but...:

            @dashrender said in It looks like a Mac problem, but...:

            @kelly said in It looks like a Mac problem, but...:

            Well, the solution was no less peculiar. In my firewall config I had specified authenticated users for LAN to WAN in my work to

            What firewall?

            Juniper SRX.

            I'm guessing some big money for that UTM.

            KellyK 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • KellyK
              Kelly @Dashrender
              last edited by

              @dashrender said in It looks like a Mac problem, but...:

              @kelly said in It looks like a Mac problem, but...:

              @dashrender said in It looks like a Mac problem, but...:

              @kelly said in It looks like a Mac problem, but...:

              Well, the solution was no less peculiar. In my firewall config I had specified authenticated users for LAN to WAN in my work to

              What firewall?

              Juniper SRX.

              I'm guessing some big money for that UTM.

              About $2k for each node. We have an HA pair.

              DashrenderD 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • DashrenderD
                Dashrender @Kelly
                last edited by

                @kelly said in It looks like a Mac problem, but...:

                @dashrender said in It looks like a Mac problem, but...:

                @kelly said in It looks like a Mac problem, but...:

                @dashrender said in It looks like a Mac problem, but...:

                @kelly said in It looks like a Mac problem, but...:

                Well, the solution was no less peculiar. In my firewall config I had specified authenticated users for LAN to WAN in my work to

                What firewall?

                Juniper SRX.

                I'm guessing some big money for that UTM.

                About $2k for each node. We have an HA pair.

                What was the reasoning behind the purchase?

                KellyK 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • KellyK
                  Kelly @Dashrender
                  last edited by

                  @dashrender said in It looks like a Mac problem, but...:

                  @kelly said in It looks like a Mac problem, but...:

                  @dashrender said in It looks like a Mac problem, but...:

                  @kelly said in It looks like a Mac problem, but...:

                  @dashrender said in It looks like a Mac problem, but...:

                  @kelly said in It looks like a Mac problem, but...:

                  Well, the solution was no less peculiar. In my firewall config I had specified authenticated users for LAN to WAN in my work to

                  What firewall?

                  Juniper SRX.

                  I'm guessing some big money for that UTM.

                  About $2k for each node. We have an HA pair.

                  What was the reasoning behind the purchase?

                  I'm not sure what you're getting at.

                  DashrenderD 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • DashrenderD
                    Dashrender @Kelly
                    last edited by

                    @kelly said in It looks like a Mac problem, but...:

                    @dashrender said in It looks like a Mac problem, but...:

                    @kelly said in It looks like a Mac problem, but...:

                    @dashrender said in It looks like a Mac problem, but...:

                    @kelly said in It looks like a Mac problem, but...:

                    @dashrender said in It looks like a Mac problem, but...:

                    @kelly said in It looks like a Mac problem, but...:

                    Well, the solution was no less peculiar. In my firewall config I had specified authenticated users for LAN to WAN in my work to

                    What firewall?

                    Juniper SRX.

                    I'm guessing some big money for that UTM.

                    About $2k for each node. We have an HA pair.

                    What was the reasoning behind the purchase?

                    I'm not sure what you're getting at.

                    A general consensus around ML is that UTMs are unnecessary, i.e. a waste of money. Additionally, Scott is pretty adamant that there is only one primary vendor (drawing a blank right now) that is good for UTMs.

                    So what I'm getting at is, what was the decision tree that lead to purchasing two $2000+ UTM firewalls? Why were they felt to be worth the value versus say a pair of Edge Routers? etc

                    KellyK JaredBuschJ 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • KellyK
                      Kelly @Dashrender
                      last edited by Kelly

                      @dashrender said in It looks like a Mac problem, but...:

                      @kelly said in It looks like a Mac problem, but...:

                      @dashrender said in It looks like a Mac problem, but...:

                      @kelly said in It looks like a Mac problem, but...:

                      @dashrender said in It looks like a Mac problem, but...:

                      @kelly said in It looks like a Mac problem, but...:

                      @dashrender said in It looks like a Mac problem, but...:

                      @kelly said in It looks like a Mac problem, but...:

                      Well, the solution was no less peculiar. In my firewall config I had specified authenticated users for LAN to WAN in my work to

                      What firewall?

                      Juniper SRX.

                      I'm guessing some big money for that UTM.

                      About $2k for each node. We have an HA pair.

                      What was the reasoning behind the purchase?

                      I'm not sure what you're getting at.

                      A general consensus around ML is that UTMs are unnecessary, i.e. a waste of money. Additionally, Scott is pretty adamant that there is only one primary vendor (drawing a blank right now) that is good for UTMs.

                      So what I'm getting at is, what was the decision tree that lead to purchasing two $2000+ UTM firewalls? Why were they felt to be worth the value versus say a pair of Edge Routers? etc

                      I didn't purchase them for the UTM, but the FIPS validation. Actually saved the company quite a bit of money overall since they were going to buy Cisco ASAs.

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                      • JaredBuschJ
                        JaredBusch @Dashrender
                        last edited by JaredBusch

                        @dashrender said in It looks like a Mac problem, but...:

                        @kelly said in It looks like a Mac problem, but...:

                        @dashrender said in It looks like a Mac problem, but...:

                        @kelly said in It looks like a Mac problem, but...:

                        @dashrender said in It looks like a Mac problem, but...:

                        @kelly said in It looks like a Mac problem, but...:

                        @dashrender said in It looks like a Mac problem, but...:

                        @kelly said in It looks like a Mac problem, but...:

                        Well, the solution was no less peculiar. In my firewall config I had specified authenticated users for LAN to WAN in my work to

                        What firewall?

                        Juniper SRX.

                        I'm guessing some big money for that UTM.

                        About $2k for each node. We have an HA pair.

                        What was the reasoning behind the purchase?

                        I'm not sure what you're getting at.

                        A general consensus around ML is that UTMs are unnecessary, i.e. a waste of money. Additionally, Scott is pretty adamant that there is only one primary vendor (drawing a blank right now) that is good for UTMs.

                        So what I'm getting at is, what was the decision tree that lead to purchasing two $2000+ UTM firewalls? Why were they felt to be worth the value versus say a pair of Edge Routers? etc

                        You are conflating shit and coming up with something none of us have said.

                        I have repeatedly said that the typical SMB has no need for a UTM. I have never said that a UTM is unnecessary.

                        But once you need a UTM, then you need a real UTM and not some $300 piece of crap.

                        Palo Alto is the gold standard in the space IMO. It does not mean that other units are shit. Just not as good, IMO.

                        You also assumed that he bought these units for UTM. Which as you can see by the follow up response, he did not.

                        DashrenderD 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • DashrenderD
                          Dashrender @JaredBusch
                          last edited by

                          @jaredbusch said in It looks like a Mac problem, but...:

                          @dashrender said in It looks like a Mac problem, but...:

                          @kelly said in It looks like a Mac problem, but...:

                          @dashrender said in It looks like a Mac problem, but...:

                          @kelly said in It looks like a Mac problem, but...:

                          @dashrender said in It looks like a Mac problem, but...:

                          @kelly said in It looks like a Mac problem, but...:

                          @dashrender said in It looks like a Mac problem, but...:

                          @kelly said in It looks like a Mac problem, but...:

                          Well, the solution was no less peculiar. In my firewall config I had specified authenticated users for LAN to WAN in my work to

                          What firewall?

                          Juniper SRX.

                          I'm guessing some big money for that UTM.

                          About $2k for each node. We have an HA pair.

                          What was the reasoning behind the purchase?

                          I'm not sure what you're getting at.

                          A general consensus around ML is that UTMs are unnecessary, i.e. a waste of money. Additionally, Scott is pretty adamant that there is only one primary vendor (drawing a blank right now) that is good for UTMs.

                          So what I'm getting at is, what was the decision tree that lead to purchasing two $2000+ UTM firewalls? Why were they felt to be worth the value versus say a pair of Edge Routers? etc

                          You are conflating shit and coming up with something none of us have said.

                          I have repeatedly said that the typical SMB has no need for a UTM. I have never said that a UTM is unnecessary.

                          But once you need a UTM, then you need a real UTM and not some $300 piece of crap.

                          Palo Alto is the gold standard in the space IMO. It does not mean that other units are shit. Just not as good, IMO.

                          You also assumed that he bought these units for UTM. Which as you can see by the follow up response, he did not.

                          I made no assumption - I asked a question. Period. Then he was confused by the question, so I explained my reason for asking.

                          So the answer to my question was - because FIPS. Period, end of line. FFS

                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • 1
                          • 2
                          • 2 / 2
                          • First post
                            Last post