4 ms·
Checkpoint has been notorious for this kind of exaggerated marketing, especially within the past few years. My theory is that their security appliance line has
by rudolf0 10y ago
Checkpoint has been notorious for this kind of exaggerated marketing, especially within the past few years. My theory is that their security appliance line has been suffering due to superior competitors (source: personal experience; could be wrong without global sales numbers), so I think they're trying to get their name back in people's minds.
This research is definitely good and beneficial, but yes, it's threat intelligence research, not vulnerability research or any sort of revelation. Definitely not deserving of a logo.
- danielweber 10y agoYears and years ago I went out searching for UMD devices vulnerable to CSRF. They universally were, but the only vendor that responded to my email was CheckPoint, who admitted it and said they were working on a fix. (They had the fix released soon, too.) Everyone else was 100% silent treatment.
- rudolf0 10y agoWhat % of the devices you tested were security appliances? It's good Checkpoint did that, but you would expect most security companies to care a lot more about patching their devices relative to all of the other various network device manufacturers out there.
- danielweber 10y agoI should have said "UTM" devices, not "UMD" devices. So all of them were security devices. One company accused me of gaining access to a private development build. That was fun.