« Return to Thread: Recommendations

Re: Recommendations

by Rick Zhong :: Rate this Message:

Reply to Author | View in Thread

HI,
From the problem you described, I find the customized accounting
program is the main issue. You may want to upgrade/re-develop the
program to make it charge by userid+source ip. If this will satisfy
your requirement, then it is not necessary to change the firewall.
Anyway if you change the firewall, I guess you still need to make
changes to the accounting program.

regards,
Rick

--
Information (In)Security @ Where It Matters - http://blog.rickzhong.com




On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 12:56 AM, Daniel Clemens
<daniel.clemens@...> wrote:

>
>
>
> On Jun 24, 2008, at 1:40 AM, Johann Spies wrote:
>
>> We have to either renew the licence on our Checkpoint Firewall-1 NG
>> (and upgrade it) or change to another software solution for our
>> firewall setup.
>
> I would upgrade. Keep things simple with what you already know.
>
>>
>>
>> Our approximately 25000 users pay for internet, some of them use a
>> pay-as-you-go-system.  At the moment the accounting is done by custom
>> programs that reads the active connections in the FW-memory.  We have
>> two problems with the present setup:
>>
>> 1. FW-1 does not connect the user and the traffic in memory or always
>>  in the logs. Only the source IP.  So it is impossible for us to
>>  handle accounting for different users using the same IP.
>>
>> 2. FW-1 does not end active connections immediately after a user has
>>  logged off.
>
>
> 1) What would be an acceptable connection teardown timeout value?
> 2) active connections will timeout or tear down within minutes of a
> connection.
>
>>
>> We are in a process of evaluating different options.  One of them is
>> NuFw - an open source product.
>>
>> Any recommendations of other products you know of will be appreciated.
>>
>> Regards
>> Johann
>> --
>> Johann Spies          Telefoon: 021-808 4036
>> Informasietegnologie, Universiteit van Stellenbosch
>>
>>    "Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is
>>     right."             Ephesians 6:1
>>
>
>

 « Return to Thread: Recommendations