 |
||||
|
|
|
||
|
Contents 
Introduction
CyberGuard SG710
Fortinet Fortigate 200A
Juniper IDP 200
SonicWALL 5060
WatchGuard X1000
Tier-3 Huntsman
Specifications
How we tested
Test Analysis
Editor's choice
About RMIT |
|
||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
The Fortigate, Juniper, and SonicWall were the devices most capable of actually identifying and reporting the names of the attacks that we launched. The other UTM appliances did a very good job at detecting and blocking the greater part of the attacks but they did this through a combination of mainly their firewall rules/policies more so than their IDP systems.
In some cases they didn't even attempt to identify the name of the suspected attack and only provided the necessary defence against it. In the real world however, this is fine, as ultimately it is what they are designed to perform.
It seems in these cases that the IDS/IDP solutions add another layer of security insurance behind the firewall, rather than allowing security teams to build up an entire picture of the exact attacks being launched to/from their networks, regardless of whether they are warded off by the firewall systems or the IDS/IDP systems.
