<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: CWVMS and CSACS in Network Access Control</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/cwvms-and-csacs/m-p/202476#M435797</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks Aamir for your quick reply.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Can I ask you what are the major issues with the current design ?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 06 Oct 2003 10:02:50 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>mjerbi</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2003-10-06T10:02:50Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>CWVMS and CSACS</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/cwvms-and-csacs/m-p/202474#M435795</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;A customer would like to install the 2 SW, CWVMS and CSACS on a DMZ.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;We have a PIX-515-R with only one DMZ and only one PC to install on it CSACS and CWVMS to manage the PIX and one IDS4215.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I know that it's not the best way to handle that (separate DMZ and therefore PCs) but as a start is there any major technical/security issue to do that ? &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;For the future I will ask the customer to add another PC and to upgrade the FW to 515-UR and therefore add another DMZ.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks in advance.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 10 Mar 2019 14:30:40 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/cwvms-and-csacs/m-p/202474#M435795</guid>
      <dc:creator>mjerbi</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-03-10T14:30:40Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: CWVMS and CSACS</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/cwvms-and-csacs/m-p/202475#M435796</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi Jerbi,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt; You can never be most secure, its probably not the best way to implement this but if this is the only option then I am not sure how we can choose for another design.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regards,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Aamir Waheed,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Cisco Systems, Inc.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;CCIE#8933&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;-=-=- &lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 06 Oct 2003 04:53:38 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/cwvms-and-csacs/m-p/202475#M435796</guid>
      <dc:creator>awaheed</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2003-10-06T04:53:38Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: CWVMS and CSACS</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/cwvms-and-csacs/m-p/202476#M435797</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks Aamir for your quick reply.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Can I ask you what are the major issues with the current design ?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 06 Oct 2003 10:02:50 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/cwvms-and-csacs/m-p/202476#M435797</guid>
      <dc:creator>mjerbi</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2003-10-06T10:02:50Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

