Re: Build ISA Server 2004 on a Hardware Devices

> I know what you mean here but i am afraid you still want to see the web
> site
> where people giving things as add-ons of third party

Of course I do. What's wrong with having a platform that's flexible, can be
extended, and has many add-ons available from many vendors and a large
independent community supporting it. I really don't see your point here...
we live in the 21st century and the time of "proprietary" solutions has long
passed in my opinion. It all boils down to your philosophy and your needs.
More "hardened", "locked-down", and "proprietary" a product is, less
flexible will be. At some point you have to struck a balance between these,
and I think ISA does a really great job at that.

> and again harden the OS
> which is 2000 or 2k3 on a machine by HP or any other,get the point i am
> talking about the Application layer kind of OS just a link or interface
> that's all not want any kernel level filesystem checking overheads and
> there
> is alot of problem if you compare Windows OS with Application OS Or system
> libs concept ,

I personally value flexibility as much as I value security, when it comes to
ISA. I think it's secure enough, if you know your stuff. You know what they
say, "any firewall is as good as the person configuring it". I would hate to
lose the flexibility which is exactly what would happen if MS started
dropping this or that from the underlying O/S. Granted there are things that
we can live without and if you dwell into the ISA hardware offerings you
will see that's exactly what you get.

> but keep one thing mind i put this query here is to just
> share, and if we get the result where we agree yes if it is possible than
> it
> would be the great achivement.
> I hope you come out this time and come up with something informative

Of course you're entitled to your opinion and so is everybody else. I am
sure there are lots of people from MS working on customer input, focus
groups etc regarding ISA and what the most customers ask for, that's where
the product will probably go.

> remember this we are all MS professional and want MS become leader in all
> and
> if there is something lacking or after making something like that make
> things
> More secure than why not

Again "more secure" is a relative thing. More secure than what?? And for
what?? It depends on the deployment scenario, among other things. The matter
is a lot more complex than just saying "this particular firewall is more
secure than this other one because it does not have a file system". I am not
going to get now into a debate regarding the product philosophy behind ISA,
it just seems to me that you are looking at things from a single point of
view which is always a dangerous approach.

Virgil


.

Relevant Pages
Quantcast