FIREWALL

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
Security Value Map (SVM)

2013 Frank Artes, Thomas Skybakmoen, Bob Walder, Vikram Phatak, Ryan Liles

Tested Products
Barracuda F800, Check Point 12600, Cyberoam CR2500iNG, Dell SonicWALL NSA 4500, Fortinet FortiGate 800c,
Juniper SRX550, NETASQ ng1000-A, NETGEAR ProSecure UTM9S, Palo Alto Networks PA-5020, Sophos UTM
425, Stonesoft StoneGate FW-1301, WatchGuard XTM 1050

Overview
Empirical data from the individual Product Analysis Reports (PAR) and Comparative Analysis Reports (CAR) is
used to create the unique Security Value Map (SVM).
This high-level document illustrates clearly the relative value of security investment options by mapping
security effectiveness and value (cost per protected Mbps) of tested product configurations.
The SVM is designed to provide a high-level overview of the detailed findings from NSS Labs group tests.
Having examined the high-level picture, it is then possible to dig deeper into individual products and
capabilities as required via the PAR and CAR documents.
Individual PARs are available for every product tested. CARs provide detailed comparisons across all tested
products in the areas of:

Security
Performance
Management
Total cost of ownership (TCO)

NSS Labs

Firewall Comparative Analysis - SVM

Dell SonicWALL NSA

4500
Average

Stonesoft FW-1301 Fortinet

FortiGate-800c100%
Check Point 12600
Palo Alto Networks
PA-5020
90%

WatchGuard XTM
1050
80%
Barracuda F800
NETASQ NG1000-A

70%

60%
Cyberoam
CR2500iNG
50%
Sophos UTM 425
40%

30%

20%
Average

NETGEAR ProSecure
UTM9S

Enterprise Management & Security Effectiveness

Juniper SRX550

10%

0%

$8,192 $4,096 $2,048 $1,024 $512

$256

$128

$64

$32

$16

$8

TCO per Protected-Mbps

$4

$2

$1

Figure 1 - 2013 Firewall Security Value Map (SVM)

2013 NSS Labs, Inc. All rights reserved.

NSS Labs

Firewall Comparative Analysis - SVM

Key Findings

Protection varied between 4% and 100%, with half of the tested devices achieving greater than 80%.
Price per Protected-Mbps varied from $2 to $994 with most tested devices costing below $12.41 per
Protected-Mbps.
Median throughput was 3.6 Gbps with a spread from 231 Mbps to 9.7 Gbps.
NETGEAR is clearly not an enterprise product, and thus was excluded from calculations of average to
prevent excessive skewing of the results to the overall detriment of the report.

Product Guidance
NSS Labs recommendations are based solely on empirical test data, validated over multiple iterations.
While some products fall within Neutral quadrants, the table below will indicate Caution if the DUT
scored below 90% of the average of all devices tested with regard to Protection and Value. The overall
quadrant score may remain Neutral, but the Protection or Value will be flagged appropriately.

Product

Protection &
Management

Value

Overall

Barracuda F800

Neutral

Recommended

Neutral

Check Point 12600

Recommended Recommended

Recommended

Cisco Systems

Caution

Caution

Caution

Cyberoam CR2500iNG

Caution

Neutral

Neutral

Dell SonicWALL NSA 4500

Recommended Neutral

Neutral

Fortinet FortiGate-800c

Recommended Recommended

Recommended

Juniper SRX550

Recommended Recommended

Recommended

NETASQ NG1000-A

Caution

Caution

Caution

NETGEAR ProSecure UTM9S

Caution

Caution

Caution

Palo Alto Networks PA-5020

Recommended Neutral

Neutral

Sophos UTM 425

Caution

Caution

Stonesoft FW-1301

Recommended Recommended

Recommended

WatchGuard XTM 1050

Recommended Neutral

Neutral

Caution

Figure 2 - NSS Labs' 2013 Firewall Recommendations

2013 NSS Labs, Inc. All rights reserved.

NSS Labs

Firewall Comparative Analysis - SVM

Security Effectiveness & Cost

Potential purchasers should not only consider the range of protection they may achieve using a given
product, they should also consider the ability to tune it to a higher level without suffering false positives.
Furthermore, total cost of ownership (TCO) should be considered over the life of the product.
All of these factors are taken into consideration when producing the SVM. In addition, a SVM Toolkit is
available to NSS clients to allow the incorporation of organization-specific costs and requirements to
create a completely customized SVM.

2013 NSS Labs, Inc. All rights reserved.

NSS Labs

Firewall Comparative Analysis - SVM

Table of Contents:
Overview ______________________________________________________________ 1
Key Findings ___________________________________________________________________ 3
Product Guidance ______________________________________________________________ 3
Security Effectiveness & Cost _____________________________________________________ 4
SVM ___________________________________________________________________ 6
What Do The Values Mean? ______________________________________________________ 6
How To Use The SVM ____________________________________________________________ 7
Analysis of Data _________________________________________________________ 8
Recommended _________________________________________________________________ 8
Check Point 12600 ____________________________________________________________ 8
Fortinet FortiGate-800c ________________________________________________________ 8
Juniper SRX 550 ______________________________________________________________ 8
Stonesoft StoneGate FW-1301 ___________________________________________________ 9
Neutral ______________________________________________________________________ 10
Barracuda NG Firewall F800 ___________________________________________________ 10
Cyberoam CR2500iNG ________________________________________________________ 10
DELL SonicWALL NSA 4500 _____________________________________________________ 11
Palo Alto Networks PA-5020 ___________________________________________________ 11
WatchGuard XTM 1050 _______________________________________________________ 11
Caution ______________________________________________________________________ 12
Cisco Systems _______________________________________________________________ 12
NETASQ NG1000 A ___________________________________________________________ 12
NETGEAR ProSecure UTM9S ____________________________________________________ 13
Sophos UTM 425 ____________________________________________________________ 13
Test Methodology ______________________________________________________ 14
Contact Information _____________________________________________________ 14

Table of Figures
Figure 1 - 2013 Firewall Security Value Map (SVM) _______________________________________________ 2
Figure 2 - NSS Labs' 2013 Firewall Recommendations _____________________________________________ 3
Figure 3 - Example SVM _____________________________________________________________________ 6

2013 NSS Labs, Inc. All rights reserved.

NSS Labs

Firewall Comparative Analysis - SVM

SVM
What Do The Values Mean?
The SVM depicts the value of a deployment of ten firewall devices and the appropriate enterprise/central
management console for each vendor. The Management Comparative Analysis Report (CAR) outlines the pricing
and structure needed for the management infrastructure if a more robust setup is desired. Additionally, the 2013
Firewall Management CAR outlines multiple cost-modeled deployments for those interested in distributed
management deployment scenarios.

Figure 3 - Example SVM

The x-axis charts the Total Cost of Ownership per Protected Mbps, a value that incorporates the 3 year TCO with
measured performance to provide a single figure that can be used to compare the real cost of each device tested.
Further to the right (lower cost) is better.
The y-axis charts the enterprise management capabilities and security effectiveness as measured via the NSS
security management review and effectiveness tests. The security effectiveness of a product as tested is
multiplied by the score for enterprise management as tested. Devices that are missing critical security OR
management capabilities will have a reduced score on this axis. Further up (higher effectiveness) is better.

2013 NSS Labs, Inc. All rights reserved.

NSS Labs

Firewall Comparative Analysis - SVM

How To Use The SVM

Mapping the data points against the Average Protection and Average Value results in four quadrants on the SVM.
Further up and to the right is the best. The upper-right quadrant contains those products that are Recommended
for both security effectiveness/management and value. These devices provide a very high level of protection,
manageability and value for money.
Further down and left is poor, and the lower left quadrant would comprise the NSS Labs Caution category these
products offer poor value for money given the 3 year TCO and measured security effectiveness/management
rating.
The remaining two quadrants comprise the NSS Labs Neutral category. These products may still be worthy of a
place on your short list based on your specific requirements.
For example, products in the upper-left quadrant score as Recommended for security effectiveness, but Neutral for
value. These products would be suitable for environments where security is paramount since they offer an
extremely high level of protection, although at a higher than average cost.
Conversely, devices in the lower-right quadrant score as Neutral for security effectiveness, but Recommended for
value. These devices would be suitable for environments where budget is paramount, and a slightly lower level of
protection is acceptable in exchange for a lower cost of ownership.
Note that while some products are clearly within Neutral quadrants, they will be rated as Caution should they
fall outside the 10% band highlighted on the chart in Figure 3. This is to ensure that products are not awarded an
inappropriately high rating should they fall too far below the average of all products tested. In such cases, the
overall quadrant score may remain Neutral, but the Protection or Value will be flagged appropriately.
In all cases, the SVM should only be a starting point. NSS Labs clients can schedule an inquiry call (or a written
response) with one of the analysts involved in the actual testing and report production. Only by combining the
wealth of knowledge contained within these reports and the experience and direct feedback from our analysts
based on your own unique requirements can you make the right decision.

2013 NSS Labs, Inc. All rights reserved.

NSS Labs

Firewall Comparative Analysis - SVM

Analysis of Data
Recommended

Check Point 12600
1

The 12600 was rated by NSS Labs at 8.4 Gbps out of the 10 Gbps claimed by the vendor. The 12600 scored 100%
for Stability, 100% for Evasion, 100% for Leakage, and 100% in the central management review. All of which
resulted in a TCO of $13 per protected megabit, and 100% for security and management effectiveness.
Check Points management system is flexible and granular, allowing for a high degree of customization. With this
level of flexibility, however, comes some complexity. For current or experienced enterprise users of Smart-1 who
have been managing NGFW and IPS through Check Points SmartDashboard, there will not be a significant learning
curve. New administrators should take their time learning the features and building the foundation of their object
groups. Check Point currently only offers the management client as a Windows executable, but the management
system, overall, is the most mature and feature-complete in its class.
For an in-depth evaluation of security, management, performance and TCO, please see the Check Point 12600
Product Analysis Report (PAR).

Fortinet FortiGate-800c
1

The FortiGate-800c was rated by NSS Labs at 9.7 Gbps out of the 20 Gbps claimed by the vendor. The 800c scored
100% for Stability, 100% for Evasion, 100% for Leakage, and 100% in the central management review. All of which
resulted in a TCO of $4 per protected megabit, and 100% for security and management effectiveness.
Fortinets management interface was reasonably well designed, although the organization of items and menus
proved less than intuitive. The policy is based on a Virtual Domain (VDOM) organization, grouping policy objects
based on their area of effect, which may create confusion for administrators that are not familiar with this method.
For users of Fortinet firewalls or IPS, there will not be a significant learning curve. Tuning and maintenance is
achieved easily, once the VDOM organizational method is understood. Management currently does not support
event correlation, and log aggregation requires an additional purchase.
For an in-depth evaluation of security, management, performance and TCO, please see the Fortinet FortiGate-800C
Product Analysis Report (PAR).

Juniper SRX 550
1

The Juniper SRX550 12.1r2 was rated by NSS Labs at 2.1 Gbps out of the 5.5 Gbps claimed by the vendor. The SRX
5500 scored 100% for Stability, 100% for Evasion, 100% for Leakage, and 100% in the central management review.
All of which resulted in a TCO of $20 per protected megabit, and 100% for security and management effectiveness.

2013 NSS Labs, Inc. All rights reserved.

NSS Labs

Firewall Comparative Analysis - SVM

Junipers Junos Space combined with the Security Threat Response Manager (STRM) provides the replacement for
the NSM/STRM management system. Space is a graphically pleasing, feature-rich user interface. The management
interface is easy to navigate and the layout is reasonably intuitive. From failsafe features like rollback policies to
prescheduling policy and rule changes, Space is straightforward to use. There is a lack of integration between
Space and STRM at this time, but Juniper has stated it is working to resolve this issue. Regardless, the system has
very robust logging and audit / change logs that are easy to navigate and filter. The help documentation included
is very useful, and administrators should have few problems learning the system.
Space can manage as few as 25 devices and new devices can be added via 100 devices license packs. There is no
stated limited as to the maximum number of managed devices that can actively be connected to the management
server at once, but Juniper should be consulted for information on CPU, RAM, and storage requirements as the
managed licenses are increased.
For an in-depth evaluation of security, management, performance and TCO, please see the Juniper SRX 550
Product Analysis Report (PAR).

Stonesoft StoneGate FW-1301
1

The StoneGate FW-1302 was rated by NSS Labs at 5.1 Gbps out of the 7.5Gbps claimed by the vendor. The FW-
1301 scored 100% for Stability, 100% for Evasion, 100% for Leakage, and 100% in the central management review.
All of which resulted in a TCO of $13 per protected megabit, and 100% for security and management effectiveness.
The Stonesoft Management Center has been designed from the ground up as a flexible and powerful large
enterprise or service provider management system. Administrator access is via extremely granular role-based
mechanisms. Policy management and deployment is straightforward and extremely flexible, with grouping and
inheritance capabilities providing the ability to deploy complex policies across multiple devices with ease. The
ability to deploy sub-policies for individual devices beneath a hierarchy of global policy templates makes this
product ideal for multi-tenanted service provider environments. Alert handling is powerful, with multiple means of
achieving the same end. Flexible real-time filter definition provides rapid drill-down to pertinent information and
the ability to save ad hoc filters for reuse later is very useful. Unique to Stonesofts Management Center are
robust investigation and forensic capabilities.
The only drawback, in certain environments, is the lack of direct device management capabilities. All Stonesoft
deployments even for a single device require the three-tier management system, making this solution less cost
effective for some SMB environments. Those customers who don't wish to take on enterprise level management
have the option to work through one of Stonesoft's managed security service providers (MSSP). However, for
large-scale enterprise and service provider environments, the Stonesoft management solution is well suited.
For an in-depth evaluation of security, management, performance and TCO, please see the Stonesoft StoneGate
FW-1301 Product Analysis Report (PAR).

2013 NSS Labs, Inc. All rights reserved.

NSS Labs

Firewall Comparative Analysis - SVM

Neutral

Barracuda NG Firewall F800
The NG Firewall F800 remained functional through most of NSS Labs performance and security testing, though
some stability issues were noted initially. The device was rated by NSS Labs at 7.8 Gbps out of the 9.2 Gbps
1
claimed by the vendor. The F800 scored 80% for Stability, 100% for Evasion, 100% Leakage, and 95% in the
central management review. All of which resulted in a TCO of $11 per protected megabit, and 76% for security
and management effectiveness.
Barracuda Networks management interface is reasonably well designed and intuitive, although there were some
instances where options and configuration parameters were difficult to find or appeared out of place. Tuning and
maintenance is straightforward once the complexities of the interface have been mastered. For users of Barracuda
Networks firewalls, there will not be a significant learning curve. However, there may be a steep learning curve for
those new to the interface. The good news is that there is excellent documentation to help overcome any
difficulties.
For an in-depth evaluation of security, management, performance and TCO please, see the Barracuda NG Firewall
F800 Product Analysis Report (PAR).

Cyberoam CR2500iNG
1

The CR2500iNG was rated by NSS Labs at 8.7 Gbps out of the 32 Gbps claimed by the vendor. The CR2500iNG
scored 100% for Stability, 100% for Evasion, 100% Leakage, and 55% in the central management review. All of
which resulted in a TCO of $19 per protected megabit, and 55% for security and management effectiveness.
CCC presents a clean user interface with tabs across the top of the screen for all areas of firewall management.
The interface is intuitive and easy to use by any experienced administrator. Reminiscent of the Cisco device
management webUI, the interfaces are clean and technical.
The interface lacks cross-connect functionality, however. Administrators are forced to copy and paste information
between screens, or enter redundant information multiple times in different places. The system is Java-based, and
this often causes compatibility issues with different browsers, as well as rendering the interface useless for some
mobile tools, such as an iPad.
iView is actually quite a robust and feature-rich logging and reporting tool. It provides an alternative for those
environments without a dedicated SIM/SIEM. However, with the logs and the firewall management implemented
via two different interfaces with no integration, it makes the system more difficult to manage than it should be.
For an in-depth evaluation of security, management, performance and TCO, please see the Cyberoam CR2500iNG
Product Analysis Report (PAR).

2013 NSS Labs, Inc. All rights reserved.

10

NSS Labs

Firewall Comparative Analysis - SVM

DELL SonicWALL NSA 4500
1

The SonicWALL NSA 4500 was rated by NSS Labs at 850 Mbps out of the 990Mbps claimed by the vendor. The
NSA 4500 scored 100% for Stability, 100% for Evasion, 100% Leakage, and 95% in the central management review.
All of which resulted in a TCO of $35 per protected megabit, and 95% for security and management effectiveness.
DELL SonicWALLs management interface is well designed and comprehensive, though the breadth of advanced
features comes at the cost of complexity. This is certainly not an interface that will be mastered quickly. However,
it does offer some highly evolved features suitable for large enterprise and multi-tenanted/service provider
deployments, making it straightforward to apply complex policies in a targeted manner across multiple nested
groups in large-scale deployments. DELL plans to offer an iOS client that will provide administrators the ability to
review logs and activity in real-time.
Tuning and maintenance is straightforward once the complexities of the interface have been mastered, and
deployment of complex, fine-grained policies across large organizations is made easy thanks to the
implementation of advanced features such as nested groups and inheritance.
For an in-depth evaluation of security, management, performance and TCO, please see the Dell SonicWALL NSA
4500 Product Analysis Report (PAR).

Palo Alto Networks PA-5020
1

The Palo Alto Networks PA-5020 was rated by NSS Labs at 4.1 Gbps out of the 5 Gbps claimed by the vendor. The
PA-5020 scored 100% for Stability, 100% for Evasion, 100% Leakage, and 95% in the central management review.
All of which resulted in a TCO of $24 per protected megabit, and 95% for security and management effectiveness.
Palo Alto Networks management interface was reasonably intuitive for most tasks, making it relatively
straightforward to use without extensive training.
Tuning and maintenance is straightforward, making it suitable for environments where only occasional updates are
expected or where there is a lack of extensive on-site expertise. However, certain features, such as the lack of
identification of application dependencies during policy creation and lack of support for group management, made
it clumsy to use.
Those used to the more traditional port- and protocol-based security ACL rules will struggle with the lack of
granularity in Palo Altos rules. The simple, single detection engine approach will find favor with SMB users,
however.
For an in-depth evaluation of security, management, performance and TCO, please see the Palo Alto Networks PA-
5020 Product Analysis Report (PAR).

WatchGuard XTM 1050
1

The WatchGuard HTM 1050 was rated by NSS Labs at 2.2 Gbps out of the 10 Gbps claimed by the vendor. The
XTM 1050 scored 100% for Stability, 100% for Evasion, 100% Leakage, and 85% in the central management review.
All of which resulted in a TCO of $40 per protected megabit, and 60% for security and management effectiveness.

2013 NSS Labs, Inc. All rights reserved.

11

NSS Labs

Firewall Comparative Analysis - SVM

WatchGuard provides a suite of management applications for use with its centralized server and managed devices,
but while the firewalls all are capable of high availability (HA), the management server lacks any fault tolerance /
redundancy features.
While it is possible to review prior firewall configurations following modifications, there is no delta view.
Administrators are forced to manually identify changes from one saved configuration to another. Other features
such as drag-and-drop VPN construction, and the ability to pre-configure new firewalls using a free cloud-based
configuration service, allow for rapid deployment at remote offices.
For an in-depth evaluation of security, management, performance and TCO, please see the WatchGuard XTM 1050
Product Analysis Report (PAR).

Caution

Cisco Systems
Cisco was not included in the 2013 firewall test since it does not currently have an enterprise class firewall in its
product line. The Adaptive Security Appliances are unified threat management (UTM) devices and thus not
optimized for deployment as dedicated firewalls. According to Cisco representatives there is a dedicated firewall
device in development, and NSS is looking forward to testing this shortly. Until that time, NSS recommends that
enterprises looking to purchase a dedicated firewall solution should consider other alternatives.

NETASQ NG1000 A
1

The NETASQ NG1000 A was rated by NSS Labs at 2.5 Gbps out of the 7 Gbps claimed by the vendor. The NG1000
A scored 100% for Stability, 70% for Evasion, 100% Leakage, and 100% in the central management review. All of
which resulted in a TCO of $27 per protected megabit, and 70% for security and management effectiveness.
Administrators are presented with a worldview showing deployed firewalls and indicating VPN tunnels, all of which
are color coded to reflect the health/status of each managed device and tunnel. Administrators can drill down into
each device, and are presented with a clean interface allowing for quick management of the devices.
While the management console centralizes the logs from the managed devices, a second product, NETASQ Event
Analyzer, is required to view this data. Event Analyzer is also used to generate all standard firewall event reports.
Centralized Manager automatically creates backups of firewall configurations during an update and administrators
are able to navigate through these backup images to restore a firewall to a prior state.
The interface is crisp and quick to respond, and intuitive for an experienced administrator. Rule creation is robust,
allowing administrators to define complex rules quickly and without the interference of restrictive parameters
often found on such interfaces.
For an in-depth evaluation of security, management, performance and TCO, please see the NETASQ NG1000 A
Product Analysis Report (PAR).
2013 NSS Labs, Inc. All rights reserved.

12

NSS Labs

Firewall Comparative Analysis - SVM

NETGEAR ProSecure UTM9S
1

The NETGEAR ProSecure UTM9S was rated by NSS Labs at 231 Mbps out of the 850 Mbps claimed by the vendor.
The device had issues during the stability and reliability tests, however. The UTM9S scored 40% for Stability, 70%
for Evasion, 100% Leakage, and 15% in the management interface review (there is no central management option).
All of which resulted in a TCO of $5,950 per protected megabit, and 4% for security and management
effectiveness.
NETGEAR does not have a centralized management console, forcing administrators to manage all deployed
firewalls one-on-one through direct device management (DDM). This does not scale in an enterprise environment.
Administrators are limited by the DDM interface, which uses inflexible web-forms for reporting, access control list
development, NAT, etc. The interface is overly restrictive with its use of drop-down and check-box menu items
that have been migrated from NETGEARs home firewall appliances.
For an in-depth evaluation of security, management, performance and TCO, please see the NETGEAR ProSecure
UTM9S Product Analysis Report (PAR).

Sophos UTM 425
1

The Sophos UTM 425 was rated by NSS Labs at 3 Gbps out of the 6 Gbps claimed by the vendor. The UTM 425
scored 100% for Stability, 70% for Evasion, 100% Leakage, and 65% in the central management review. All of
which resulted in a TCO of $44 per protected megabit, and 46% for security and management effectiveness.
Sophos UTM Manager has some limitations, and the administrator must open a session to the direct device
management port of the firewall to fulfill certain tasks. These include access to change control logs, granular
firewall transaction log data, front panel view, and port status and utilization information for the device.
Logs are presented as tab delimited text files in new windows within the browser. Administrators are required to
compile and normalize such data into spreadsheets, or feed it into a SIM/SIEM to filter, sort and parse the output.
Sophos has included UTM features, such as Insight, into the anti virus report data coming from protected
endpoints. However, the system is missing features commonly found on enterprise-class central management
systems, such as transaction roll-back and failsafe checks on new configurations prior to deployment.
Administrators are required to make DDM connections to firewalls to correct these issues.
For an in-depth evaluation of security, management, performance and TCO, please see the Sophos UTM 425
Product Analysis Report (PAR).

2013 NSS Labs, Inc. All rights reserved.

13

NSS Labs

Firewall Comparative Analysis - SVM

Test Methodology
Methodology Version: Firewall v4
A copy of the test methodology is available on the NSS Labs website at www.nsslabs.com

Contact Information
NSS Labs, Inc.
206 Wild Basin Rd, Suite 200A
Austin, TX 78746 USA
+1 (512) 961-5300
info@nsslabs.com
www.nsslabs.com

v2013.02.07

This and other related documents available at: www.nsslabs.com. To receive a licensed copy or report misuse,
please contact NSS Labs at +1 (512) 961-5300 or sales@nsslabs.com.

2013 NSS Labs, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, photocopied, stored on a retrieval

system, or transmitted without the express written consent of the authors.

Please note that access to or use of this report is conditioned on the following:

1. The information in this report is subject to change by NSS Labs without notice.

2. The information in this report is believed by NSS Labs to be accurate and reliable at the time of publication, but is not
guaranteed. All use of and reliance on this report are at the readers sole risk. NSS Labs is not liable or responsible for any
damages, losses, or expenses arising from any error or omission in this report.
3. NO WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED ARE GIVEN BY NSS LABS. ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, AND NON-INFRINGEMENT ARE DISCLAIMED AND
EXCLUDED BY NSS LABS. IN NO EVENT SHALL NSS LABS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CONSEQUENTIAL, INCIDENTAL OR INDIRECT
DAMAGES, OR FOR ANY LOSS OF PROFIT, REVENUE, DATA, COMPUTER PROGRAMS, OR OTHER ASSETS, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY THEREOF.
4. This report does not constitute an endorsement, recommendation, or guarantee of any of the products (hardware or
software) tested or the hardware and software used in testing the products. The testing does not guarantee that there are no
errors or defects in the products or that the products will meet the readers expectations, requirements, needs, or
specifications, or that they will operate without interruption.
5. This report does not imply any endorsement, sponsorship, affiliation, or verification by or with any organizations mentioned
in this report.
6. All trademarks, service marks, and trade names used in this report are the trademarks, service marks, and trade names of
their respective owners.

2013 NSS Labs, Inc. All rights reserved.

14