Educause Security Discussion mailing list archives
Re: NAC devices - opinions sought
From: Brian Friday <bfriday () LASIERRA EDU>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 16:30:05 -0800
We demoed a mirage solution here in October of last year and rejected it as a solution. The reason for the rejection could be simply summed up by the words "fully functional only with additional hardware / software purchase". The long summation is below. The normal mirage box is functionally very similiar to all other non- agent boxes in that it deals with traffic by monitoring / injecting data via span ports. Our demo didn't last long enough really to get a lot of good data from this monitoring on our existing network (demo guy double booked our unit). So I can not give detailed specifics on what we found. The deal breaker for us with mirage was identifying isolated machines and operators of those machines. Mirage has no correlation between user and machine rather the machine is isolated to either be fixed or have the user call for support. Something that we felt would be a gigantic step back in servicing our rather small community and significantly increase our support costs. To get the ability to correlate an isolated machine to a physical user would require the purchase of an additional hardware box which at the time had not been released and based on a quick view of Mirage's website appears still to be unreleased. Granted this might have changed since our demo and perhaps the engineer provided to us did not correctly explain the features. So to the cons side I would add: hidden costs for additional hardware to meet functionality requirements, very costly when implemented in a multi-vlan environment (price is effected by number of vlans monitored). I believe packetfence is capable of doing both the agentless nac as well as captive portal on the same box which puts it in a different league from Mirage. Caveat, I have yet to have time to put a packetfence system online so this information is just from the reading I have been able to do. Brian Friday Infrastructure Manager Information Technology La Sierra University Riverside, CA 92515 Tel: (951) 785-2900 Fax: (951) 785-2908 bfriday () lasierra edu
Current thread:
- Re: NAC devices - opinions sought, (continued)
- Re: NAC devices - opinions sought Jeff Murphy (Feb 16)
- Re: NAC devices - opinions sought Cal Frye (Feb 16)
- Re: NAC devices - opinions sought Brian T Nichols (Feb 17)
- Re: NAC devices - opinions sought Conor McGrath (Feb 17)
- Re: NAC devices - opinions sought Brian T Nichols (Feb 17)
- Re: NAC devices - opinions sought Barros, Jacob (Feb 19)
- NAC devices - opinions sought Chris Harrington (Feb 19)
- Re: NAC devices - opinions sought Walter E. Petruska (Feb 19)
- Re: NAC devices - opinions sought David Gillett (Feb 20)
- Re: NAC devices - opinions sought John (Feb 20)
- Re: NAC devices - opinions sought Brian Friday (Feb 20)
- Re: NAC devices - opinions sought John Kemp (Mar 08)
- Re: NAC devices - opinions sought David Gillett (Mar 08)
