All Blog Comments

Anonymous - NAC Guests Are Not THE Problem

Anonymous — Aug 28, 2008 6:22 PM

Hey Dana, You are pretty much wrong about the NAC Guest Server. It works with any RADIUS captive portal technology - not just from Cisco, portals from any vendor! Its also $25K list, but guess what - it supports an unlimited amount of guests. Nice also to see you did your research on GBS. That is nothing but a box to take a visitors mac address - nice!

Dana Hendrickson - Infonetics Reports Positive News About NAC Sales & Market Outlook

Dana Hendrickson — Jul 25, 2008 2:59 PM

Yes, thanks for pointing out my error!

Eli - Infonetics Reports Positive News About NAC Sales & Market Outlook

Eli — Jul 21, 2008 8:55 AM

In the 4th paragraph, should it say "...1Q2008 sales were $62.7M."?

Akshay - With A Grain of Salt (Truth?): Green NAC

Akshay — Jun 11, 2008 7:44 AM

Good one!! While going green has gained universal acceptance. Very less attention is being paid to attempts and reviewing it.. this analysis was interesting .. keep it goin..

Howard Pressman - With A Grain of Salt (Truth?): Green NAC

Howard Pressman — May 21, 2008 12:50 PM

Love the analysis and viewpoint Dana! As an IT security product vendor (not NAC), I must admit that power consumption is not at the top of my feature requirements list. I have been thinking more and more of product size and weight as a function of reducing shipping costs, but from a purely economic viewpoint. While I think it is important for us all to think about making our products more green as a rule of thumb where it makes sense, and the company in question may be right on with their claims, I do agree that it is disingenuous if they can't or won't provide supporting information to make the point real. Lots of customers are concerned about power consumption and cooling costs, so their release might actually work to get them some interest if they don't appear so shady by hiding details.

Dana Hendrickson - Network World Tests NAC: So What?

Dana Hendrickson — May 11, 2008 10:33 AM

I do not understand your "seems hypocritical" comment. Secure Access Central provides a comprehensive review of NAC products based on a detailed examination, publishes all its data, does NOT pass judgement on individual products using simplistic scoring, and offers our work at a price FAR BELOW less informative industry analyst reports. Network World publishes ratings without any detailed info to support its judgements. I am simply encouraging them to do so. Then their analysis would be much more useful for you and other security professionals. I actually want them to do a better job and do NOT view them as competition. Yes, we do are own marketing and blogging is central to it.

Any reason you do not identify yourself when you post so readers know who you really are?

IT Director - Network World Tests NAC: So What?

IT Director — May 11, 2008 5:30 AM

So Network World's review is flawed and you just happen to have a 'for fee' solution to their shortcomings. Convenient. One could wonder what your motivation is. You should do your own marketing not rely on riding the free coattails you just criticized. Seems hypocritical to me.