<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Slow websurf performance with Sophos UTM and Endpoint Protection	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://networkguy.de/slow-websurf-performance-with-sophos-utm-and-endpoint-protection/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://networkguy.de/slow-websurf-performance-with-sophos-utm-and-endpoint-protection/</link>
	<description>Share your knowledge!</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Aug 2014 22:51:05 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: William Warren		</title>
		<link>https://networkguy.de/slow-websurf-performance-with-sophos-utm-and-endpoint-protection/#comment-350</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[William Warren]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Aug 2014 22:51:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://networkguy.de/?p=769#comment-350</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[I&#039;ve never been a fan of such vertical integration.  Considering that if you have sophos endpoint behind UTM the UTM is bypassed(told to me by a rep).  So if you have UTM at the edge put another non-sophos or avira enpoint behind it.  You then don&#039;t have to worry bout this bug nor do you loose a layer of protection.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve never been a fan of such vertical integration.  Considering that if you have sophos endpoint behind UTM the UTM is bypassed(told to me by a rep).  So if you have UTM at the edge put another non-sophos or avira enpoint behind it.  You then don&#8217;t have to worry bout this bug nor do you loose a layer of protection.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
