Question

Following a merger, the number of remote sites for a company has doubled to 52. The company has decided to secure each remote site with an NGFW to provide web filtering, NIDS/NIPS, and network antivirus. The Chief Information Officer (CIO) has requested that the security engineer provide recommendations on sizing for the firewall with the requirements that it be easy to manage and provide capacity for growth. The tables below provide information on a subset of remote sites and the firewall options:

Location # of Users Connectivity Bandwidth Use
St Louis 18 50 Mbps 20 Mbps
Des Moines 12 25 Mbps 19 Mbps
Chicago 27 100 Mbps 41 Mbps
Rapid City 6 10 Mbps 8 Mbps
Indianapolis 7 12 Mbps 8 Mbps

Vendor MinDevices FirewallThrouput FullUTM? Central?
A 40 150 Mbps Y Y
B 60 400 Mbps N Y
C 25 200 Mbps N N
D 25 100 Mbps Y Y

Which of the following would be the BEST option to recommend to the CIO?

A. Vendor C for small remote sites, and Vendor B for large sites.
B. Vendor B for all remote sites
C. Vendor C for all remote sites
D. Vendor A for all remote sites
E. Vendor D for all remote sites

Answer 1

The best option to recommend to the CIO for a firewall for the company's remote sites is Vendor A, as it offers both full UTM and central management capabilities, and its capacity meets the requirements of both small and large remote sites within the company.

Step-by-step explanation:

The question requires selecting the best vendor for Next-Generation Firewalls (NGFWs) to secure company's remote sites post-merger, where the number of remote sites has doubled to 52. The firewall should be capable of handling web filtering, Network Intrusion Detection Systems/Network Intrusion Prevention Systems (NIDS/NIPS), and network antivirus, according to the projected connectivity bandwidth and number of users at each site.

Considering the provided data, Vendor A is the best option for all the sites because it supports a minimum of 40 devices and has a throughput of 150 Mbps, which is sufficient for even the largest listed site (Chicago with 27 users and 41 Mbps use). Moreover, Vendor A offers full Unified Threat Management (UTM) and central management capabilities, making the solution easy to manage and capable of accommodating future growth.The large remote sites, which have higher bandwidth usage and more users, do not exceed Vendor A's specifications, therefore there is no need to recommend a different vendor for smaller or larger sites. Vendor B has a higher throughput but does not offer full UTM, and Vendor C, while providing enough throughput, does not support central management. Vendor D has a lower throughput capacity which might not be sufficient for the larger sites. Hence, Vendor A's offering aligns with the CIO's requirements best.