<?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 IPS Advice... in Network Security</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/ips-advice/m-p/2333484#M53544</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;We manage several customers that have IPS running on ASA's configured in active/standby mode. The active IPS unit is always in the active ASA so when there is a failover the active IPS be the sensor running on the new active ASA. A failure in the IPS modue of the active ASA will cause a failover event to trigger.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;As jp.senior noted there have been somewhat recent issues with signatures causing the IPS units to crash and in light of that we have a policy to update the active unit to the most recent signature ASAP and only upgrade the standby IPS after the signature proves stable for 5 days. This way we always have an IPS sensor that is capable of running stable in the event of a problem signature.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;So, if it is critical for your organization to not have a failover during business hours then you may want to go with a standalone unit. The standalone units cost a ton more than they used so you'll have to take that into account in your decision.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Jon.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 31 Jul 2013 14:39:35 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>JonPBerbee</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2013-07-31T14:39:35Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>IPS Advice...</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/ips-advice/m-p/2333482#M53539</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Our company is looking at an IPS solution and I've heard pros and cons about using IPS modules for the ASAs versus standalone units.&amp;nbsp; Our basic physical topology is a 5515 pair in active/standby w/ a L2L vpn to another fw pair at a colo.&amp;nbsp; &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I had worked with them years ago and remember some issue about the modules not knowing if the ASA changed from active to standby or back.&amp;nbsp; I can't remember exactly what the issue was, but it seemed to be a real pain.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;For those with plenty of experience with both solutions, would you recommend the ASA modules or the standalone units?&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 10 Mar 2019 13:01:15 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/ips-advice/m-p/2333482#M53539</guid>
      <dc:creator>tbrendle</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-03-10T13:01:15Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>IPS Advice...</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/ips-advice/m-p/2333483#M53542</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;The built in units cause too many failovers of production environments based on all of bugs Cisco has - when the IPS engine stops responding or becomes busy, the module is marked as 'failed' by the firewall.&amp;nbsp; This causes a failover event on the device, regardless of failopen/failclosed settings.&amp;nbsp; Cisco's recent instability on the IPS module would have me encourage you to look at an alternative topology - external IPS are a better bet.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 31 Jul 2013 02:43:57 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/ips-advice/m-p/2333483#M53542</guid>
      <dc:creator>jp.senior</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2013-07-31T02:43:57Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>IPS Advice...</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/ips-advice/m-p/2333484#M53544</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;We manage several customers that have IPS running on ASA's configured in active/standby mode. The active IPS unit is always in the active ASA so when there is a failover the active IPS be the sensor running on the new active ASA. A failure in the IPS modue of the active ASA will cause a failover event to trigger.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;As jp.senior noted there have been somewhat recent issues with signatures causing the IPS units to crash and in light of that we have a policy to update the active unit to the most recent signature ASAP and only upgrade the standby IPS after the signature proves stable for 5 days. This way we always have an IPS sensor that is capable of running stable in the event of a problem signature.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;So, if it is critical for your organization to not have a failover during business hours then you may want to go with a standalone unit. The standalone units cost a ton more than they used so you'll have to take that into account in your decision.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Jon.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 31 Jul 2013 14:39:35 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/ips-advice/m-p/2333484#M53544</guid>
      <dc:creator>JonPBerbee</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2013-07-31T14:39:35Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

