Re: Websense vs N2H2 posted 03/27/2006
- Subject: Re: Websense vs N2H2
- From: Kal H <calikali2006@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 12:51:22 -0800 (PST)
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=jOMJlPsgkZ5BegDsaDTY9byNFVsjtKcKBm3UiJAfJxzEBw5usZXRvXwkKLYj57ZTKK2G/k+the12SuqqMkW/h8GzM7SsL3xH82N11FDA312dc7z3Z6WssH6ILXfEKOTNnhlaYCcvvEqPI0SWjERtXk0ge3DmMsBhop279eXRwi0= ;
- In-reply-to: <200603271636.k2RGa3ra022254@ms-smtp-03.rdc-nyc.rr.com>
Websense is much better than N2H2.
Websense can filter HTTP, FTP, HTTPS but
N2H2 can filter only HTTP.
But N2H2 is bought over by a company called Secure Computing
and their new product released before a few months can support ftp and https too.
its called smart filter.
But thats new stuff.. Websense has many more features than n2h2.
Tim <ccie2be@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I'm looking for opinions on which of the above content filters is better.
I know that both are supported by Cisco PIX firewalls but I don't have first
hand experience with either of them.
If the answers is, "It depends.", can you provide some high level criteria
to based a decision on?
Over the years, I've gotten the gut impression that Websense is the more
popular of the two but that might have more to do with my limited exposure.
Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min.