<?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 5300 security in Switches, Hubs, and Modems</title>
    <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/switches-hubs-and-modems/5300-security/m-p/3918208#M10019</link>
    <description>Currently we have 802.1x for our wireless. We need to have security for our wired ports. We are a school district with 24k students and two network folks. &lt;BR /&gt;what would be the best security to invoke on the 5300's? By best I mean one that would cause the least distruption to the end users and (hopefully) less calls to the help desk. &lt;BR /&gt;802.1x has the most hope but is an issue with the supplicant and configuration (not enough manpower).&lt;BR /&gt;We were looking at port security also. If I read the manual correctly, my options on the port will be to either be notified (not timely enough) or have the port disabled (many disgruntled users). I was hoping to block unwanted traffic while permitting authorized users to continue to work...&lt;BR /&gt;Thanks</description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Dec 2006 16:37:33 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Greg Askew</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2006-12-27T16:37:33Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>5300 security</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/switches-hubs-and-modems/5300-security/m-p/3918208#M10019</link>
      <description>Currently we have 802.1x for our wireless. We need to have security for our wired ports. We are a school district with 24k students and two network folks. &lt;BR /&gt;what would be the best security to invoke on the 5300's? By best I mean one that would cause the least distruption to the end users and (hopefully) less calls to the help desk. &lt;BR /&gt;802.1x has the most hope but is an issue with the supplicant and configuration (not enough manpower).&lt;BR /&gt;We were looking at port security also. If I read the manual correctly, my options on the port will be to either be notified (not timely enough) or have the port disabled (many disgruntled users). I was hoping to block unwanted traffic while permitting authorized users to continue to work...&lt;BR /&gt;Thanks</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Dec 2006 16:37:33 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/switches-hubs-and-modems/5300-security/m-p/3918208#M10019</guid>
      <dc:creator>Greg Askew</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2006-12-27T16:37:33Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: 5300 security</title>
      <link>https://community.hpe.com/t5/switches-hubs-and-modems/5300-security/m-p/3918209#M10020</link>
      <description>For the (most probably unmanaged) 24k users network I would recommend not 802.1X solution. The real pain is administering 802.1X on the unmanaged computers.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Try to look toward in-line NAC solutions optimized for unmanaged environments (like agent-less assessment and optional agent deployment). There are a lot on the market now.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;There is also _VERY GOOD_ freeware solution &lt;A href="http://www.packetfence.org/" target="_blank"&gt;http://www.packetfence.org/&lt;/A&gt; Last one is constantly developing by a several big universities for internal use and also posted to the public domain.&lt;BR /&gt;PacketFence is really _BEST_ (easy install, easy GUI, nice reports, etc.)</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Dec 2006 03:37:19 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.hpe.com/t5/switches-hubs-and-modems/5300-security/m-p/3918209#M10020</guid>
      <dc:creator>Sergej Gurenko</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2006-12-29T03:37:19Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

