CPUG: The Check Point User Group

Resources for the Check Point Community, by the Check Point Community.


 

Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: AV Blade vs. Traditional AV

  1. #1
    Join Date
    2005-10-12
    Posts
    448
    Rep Power
    12

    Default AV Blade vs. Traditional AV

    Hi,

    I am wondering is there a document mentioning the difference between the two AV engines. I have read in the documentation that we cannot use both the engines together. So is there any specific functionality for which we might want to use the traditional AV engine over the AV blade. Does the traditional AV engines comes default with the gateway as there is no blade or licensing for the same.

    I am not sure if this is true that the traditional AV engine supports all the protocols for scanning as compared to the AV blade.

    Any insights on the same would be great.

    Regards

    Sebastan

  2. #2
    Join Date
    2016-01-14
    Posts
    8
    Rep Power
    0

    Default Re: AV Blade vs. Traditional AV

    You can enable Traditional AV by double clicking your gateway to get to gateway properties, expand "other" then click "more settings".Traditional AV is going out and from personal experience very few sales reps understand anything about it. As far as i can tell the new AV that is under the threat prevention umbrella does support the same protocols. It works with SMTP, HTTP and HTTPS (with https inspection enabled). There is licensing for traditional AV but as i mentioned good luck finding a sales guy that understands that there are two products.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    2005-10-12
    Posts
    448
    Rep Power
    12

    Default Re: AV Blade vs. Traditional AV

    Thanks a lot for your response. I am glad that you pointed out that these are two separate products. I was under the impression that AV blade activates both the AV engines and like you mentioned I could not find any licensing options for the traditional AV.

    Thanks for the clarity.

    Regards

    Sebastan

  4. #4
    Join Date
    2005-10-12
    Posts
    448
    Rep Power
    12

    Default Re: AV Blade vs. Traditional AV

    Hi,

    Has anything changed with R80 yet with regards to AV. I haven't played with R80 yet hence checking with folks who are playing with it. Are there any configurable options for FTP, CIFS. Do we have to still use traditional AV for FTP & POP3 traffic like in R77.30 ?

    Regards

    Sebastan

  5. #5
    Join Date
    2006-03-08
    Location
    Lausanne
    Posts
    763
    Rep Power
    12

    Default Re: AV Blade vs. Traditional AV

    Quote Originally Posted by sebastan_bach View Post
    Hi,

    Has anything changed with R80 yet with regards to AV. I haven't played with R80 yet hence checking with folks who are playing with it. Are there any configurable options for FTP, CIFS. Do we have to still use traditional AV for FTP & POP3 traffic like in R77.30 ?

    Regards

    Sebastan
    At this point, no
    -------------

    Valeri Loukine
    CCMA, CCSM, CCSI
    http://checkpoint-master-architect.blogspot.com/

Similar Threads

  1. AV Blade vs. Traditional AV
    By sebastan_bach in forum Threat Prevention
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 2016-10-31, 10:19
  2. AV Blade vs. Traditional AV
    By sebastan_bach in forum R80
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2016-08-21, 16:27
  3. Record in Blade Price for DLP Blade $12000 ~ $12.500 SG401 Container
    By serlud in forum Data Loss Prevention Blade (DLP))
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 2010-04-20, 19:00
  4. Mixing blade/non blade licensing?
    By ChadB in forum Licensing
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 2010-04-06, 11:36
  5. VPN traditional mode
    By EElav in forum IPsec VPN Blade (Virtual Private Networks)
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 2005-09-11, 16:33

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •