• RSS
  • Twitter
  • FaceBook

Welcome to ISAserver.org

Forums | Register | Login | My Profile | Inbox | RSS RSS icon | My Subscription | My Forums | Address Book | Member List | Search | FAQ | Ticket List | Log Out

Websense vs SurfControl

Users viewing this topic: none

Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [ISA Server 2000 Misc.] >> 3rd Party Add-ons >> Websense vs SurfControl Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Websense vs SurfControl - 8.Aug.2002 10:40:00 PM   
Xuser

 

Posts: 232
Joined: 29.Jan.2002
From: Canada
Status: offline
Hello.

I will be evaluating Wesbsense and SurfControl to implement for our company. Does anyone here has any views/opinions on either one of these products? TIA.
Post #: 1
RE: Websense vs SurfControl - 9.Aug.2002 2:10:00 PM   
lemonwater925

 

Posts: 417
Joined: 22.Mar.2001
From: North of the 49th
Status: offline
We did look but, got a real bad taste with the price. Way too expensive. We are still looking. One of the other ones was X-Stop.

Would be interested in what you choose if would not mind posting your findings.

Remember to factor in the firewall client in your test [Smile] Seem to remember seeing something that it only looks at web proxy but, could be wrong.

(in reply to Xuser)
Post #: 2
RE: Websense vs SurfControl - 9.Aug.2002 5:09:00 PM   
Xuser

 

Posts: 232
Joined: 29.Jan.2002
From: Canada
Status: offline
Yes, I am currently running Websense in our test network. It seems to have a problem with my Firewall client PC which is also a DHCP Win95 client. The problem is that I cannot browse the Internet even though I have the WebProxy enabled. Once I enabled this same PC as a SecureNAT client, I can access the net now. However, I have other two problems which I need to call their tech support to solve.

1. When I downloaded the Master Database, it doesn't show me which ver of the database but instead, displayed a successful download of "00000" version. I can see the categories but cannot view the URLs. I tried "www.sex.com" and I can go through even though I blocked it. So I had to manually keyed in "www.sex.com" under the Sex category and then it blocked the site.

I've briefly looked at Surfcontrol and it says on their website that it will not work with ISA Server firewall client. This seems really bad as we really need the Firewall client to be installed on our network.

(in reply to Xuser)
Post #: 3
RE: Websense vs SurfControl - 11.Aug.2002 12:24:00 AM   
lemonwater925

 

Posts: 417
Joined: 22.Mar.2001
From: North of the 49th
Status: offline
Did you take a look at X-stop ? Right now we just block a handful of sites. Enough for HR to say we were making an attempt.

(in reply to Xuser)
Post #: 4
RE: Websense vs SurfControl - 12.Aug.2002 6:49:00 PM   
Xuser

 

Posts: 232
Joined: 29.Jan.2002
From: Canada
Status: offline
quote:
Originally posted by lemonwater925:
Did you take a look at X-stop ? Right now we just block a handful of sites. Enough for HR to say we were making an attempt.

No, haven't had time yet. I will download the demo version if they have one and try it out on our test network.
Btw, does X-stop provide you with a blocked msg or one that you can create/modify?

(in reply to Xuser)
Post #: 5
RE: Websense vs SurfControl - 14.Aug.2002 10:05:00 PM   
mrmelton

 

Posts: 59
Joined: 19.Feb.2002
From: Portland, OR
Status: offline
We used to run SurfControl on our proxy servers but it was, by far, the worst piece of software I had ever used. Those working on the project with me were of the same opinion. The blocking it provided was horrible at best. We had vendor engineers on site two times; each time they left without having answers for our problems.

We now run WebSense and are very pleased with it's performance. Granted it is expensive, but the alternative was too much to bear.

(in reply to Xuser)
Post #: 6
RE: Websense vs SurfControl - 15.Aug.2002 1:52:00 AM   
Halo

 

Posts: 26
Joined: 12.Mar.2002
Status: offline
SurfControl works great for me. Somehow people think that it doesn't work with the Firewall client installed. You can use the Firewall client with it, but you have to do 2 things.
1.) Block by client address sets.
2.) Have the HTTP Redirector send requests to the firewall.

You will also lose some of your reporting abilities because the HTTP redirector cannot pass the authentication to the web proxy. Go here for an explaination why.

(in reply to Xuser)
Post #: 7
RE: Websense vs SurfControl - 15.Aug.2002 2:20:00 PM   
lemonwater925

 

Posts: 417
Joined: 22.Mar.2001
From: North of the 49th
Status: offline
Trying to remember. I believe it does but, looked at it over a year ago. Did also look at a couple of other products and not 100%.

(in reply to Xuser)
Post #: 8
RE: Websense vs SurfControl - 16.Aug.2002 3:05:00 PM   
Xuser

 

Posts: 232
Joined: 29.Jan.2002
From: Canada
Status: offline
quote:
Originally posted by Halo:
SurfControl works great for me. Somehow people think that it doesn't work with the Firewall client installed. You can use the Firewall client with it, but you have to do 2 things.
1.) Block by client address sets.
2.) Have the HTTP Redirector send requests to the firewall.

You will also lose some of your reporting abilities because the HTTP redirector cannot pass the authentication to the web proxy. Go here for an explaination why.

This is very interesting. Maybe that's why my Firewall client has a problem. Reporting is very important to our company and if this doesn't work, then I guess Websense is out.

(in reply to Xuser)
Post #: 9
RE: Websense vs SurfControl - 14.Sep.2002 2:36:00 AM   
Surfer

 

Posts: 4
Joined: 14.Sep.2002
Status: offline
If you require usernames with surfcontrol and are using the firewall client you will also have to set the manual proxy setting in the browser. This makes your clients both firewall and web proxy clients and will enable surfcontrol to monitor by domain/username.

(in reply to Xuser)
Post #: 10
RE: Websense vs SurfControl - 16.Sep.2002 3:51:00 PM   
Xuser

 

Posts: 232
Joined: 29.Jan.2002
From: Canada
Status: offline
Here's an update. We have basically going with Websense because it will work with our Firewall, SecureNAT and WebProxy clients. My past problems have been solved.

1. Problem#1: Wasn't able to download master database.

Solution: PC used to evaluate did not meet the minimum hardware requirements.

2. New problem: Each time an Adult site is being accessed (category is blocked), when user click on the "More Information about access policy" link, Websense gave incorrect information. Information given was that Websense will allow this category to be viewed after "X" time. "X" time being the time of the day. If I were to viewed this Adult site at 10:10am, the information will say I can view this category after 10am. This is totally incorrect as I only have 1 policy used, and it is the Global policy with no quota policy.

(in reply to Xuser)
Post #: 11
RE: Websense vs SurfControl - 20.Sep.2002 11:21:00 PM   
amartinez

 

Posts: 1
Joined: 28.May2002
Status: offline
Both SurfControl and Websense are decent produts for the ISA Filtering. Have you tested Sentian by N2H2? They are a Gold Certified Microsoft partner.

(in reply to Xuser)
Post #: 12
RE: Websense vs SurfControl - 23.Sep.2002 4:00:00 PM   
Xuser

 

Posts: 232
Joined: 29.Jan.2002
From: Canada
Status: offline
quote:
Originally posted by Alex Martinez:
Both SurfControl and Websense are decent produts for the ISA Filtering. Have you tested Sentian by N2H2? They are a Gold Certified Microsoft partner.

No, I haven't tried Sentian but will take a peek at it.

We do not want to go with SurfControl because it doesn't support ISA Firewall Clients.

For Websense, the downfall is that it is very expensive and also requires a few more hardware (Servers) to run. E.g. In our scenerio, we needed a dedicated Websense Server machine with MS Win2000 Server OS. This setup will costs us more $$$ as we do require more $$ to purchase the Win2000 Server OS license. Another downfall, Websense techsupport do not have a free toll free number to call. You have to pay a fee for that.

(in reply to Xuser)
Post #: 13
RE: Websense vs SurfControl - 27.Sep.2002 7:57:00 PM   
Xuser

 

Posts: 232
Joined: 29.Jan.2002
From: Canada
Status: offline
I just spoke to a Websense sales person and she said N2H2 is in financial difficulty. Is this true?

(in reply to Xuser)
Post #: 14
RE: Websense vs SurfControl - 20.Oct.2002 8:30:00 PM   
JDooley

 

Posts: 8
Joined: 23.Mar.2001
From: Charlotte, NC, USA
Status: offline
My company was one of the first users of the SuperScout product, and frankly we couldn't have made a bigger mistake.

The combonation of settings that are required to get the product working (HTTP redirector blocking SNAT and FC, authentication on..) renders some products unusable. The blocking is workable, but updating categories is cumbersome for support staff. Destination sets take forever to pull domain membership for blocking, so you are forced to block local groups that contain domain groups. The startup time of the webproxy service is greatly increased which makes restarting the services problematic.

I'll be happy to discuss the specifics with anyone, but I'd advise you to steer clear.

JD

(in reply to Xuser)
Post #: 15
RE: Websense vs SurfControl - 25.Oct.2002 2:42:00 AM   
bhoover

 

Posts: 9
Joined: 24.Oct.2002
From: DC Metro
Status: offline
I'm running Burstek's products (Log Analyzer). Very small overhead, reasonable price. I can monitor traffic by user or group (reporting) as well as control access.

(in reply to Xuser)
Post #: 16
RE: Websense vs SurfControl - 2.Nov.2002 6:18:00 PM   
scientist

 

Posts: 115
Joined: 16.Oct.2002
From: Atlanta
Status: offline
we are using websense at our company and it works great. blocks exactly what you tell it to and the reporting tool is very good too! Also, their tech support seems to really be on the ball. I would recommend it.

(in reply to Xuser)
Post #: 17
RE: Websense vs SurfControl - 22.Apr.2003 9:42:00 PM   
danahallenbeck

 

Posts: 27
Joined: 24.Jan.2003
Status: offline
I have tested and used both SurfControl and WebSense. Speed-wise, WebSense is a winner...hands down. Reporting-wise, SurfControl wins. Both products are good (the newer versions are way easier to use than the old ones) and both will accomplish just about anything you want them to do.

We are currently using SurfControl. You have to be up to date on Win2k, ISA and SurfControl patches in order for it to work right, though. Otherwise the proxy service fails constantly. I am happy with it now that I have it running well. I am going to test N2H2 sometime soon...just because they are a Gold Certified Partner. It may work better with ISA, but I am sure it will have some nuances to get used to.

Dana Hallenbeck

(in reply to Xuser)
Post #: 18
RE: Websense vs SurfControl - 28.Apr.2003 6:52:00 PM   
Guest
But do any of them have the ability to send SMTP emails as soon as someone tries to break policy!? If not - can they send an eMailed report out each night with the previous days "misbehavers".

SurfControl can - but not for download attempts of .EXE and .ZIP

Nothing else so far can...... or can it!?

Also - any packages prevent download of .EXEs which are NOT part of the URL string - but are "pushed" by a server-side script?

I've evaluated SurfControl; Websense; Orangebox; smart filter etc - and I'd say Surf Control is the only one that was a piece of cake and was almost perfect. The rest seem "student bodges" with custom UI's all over the place.... Nothing looks and feels professional!

Also - does everyone else get 60% of sites as being uncatagorised - regardless of product?

(in reply to Xuser)
  Post #: 19

Page:   [1] << Older Topic    Newer Topic >>
All Forums >> [ISA Server 2000 Misc.] >> 3rd Party Add-ons >> Websense vs SurfControl Page: [1]
Jump to:

New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts