ZyXEL 35

This is a lower version of ZyXEL 70. The functionalities and features are

same as that of ZyXEL 70, except that ZyXEL 35 can only handle lesser concurrent

connections. It is basically targeted to small business or SOHO networks. There

are two WAN and four LAN/DMZ ports, like ZyXEL 70 this also has one console port

and dial-up port for backup. Owing to its two WAN ports it can be used for

gateway or WAN link failover and load balancing. Having a dial-up backup port it

has an added advantage in case of a WAN link failure. Also, if both WAN ports go

down you are still left with an option of dialing in the device and configuring

bit. Like ZyXEL 70, this also has a turbo card and has optional support for

wireless network. Turbo card enables the anti-virus and anti-spam options on

this device. Configuration of this device was not so easy as compared to others.

One noticeable change seen compared to others is that in ZyXEL there was no

username field, you only have to provide the password to log into the web

interface. This appliance didn't have any setup wizard like the others, which

makes the device slightly difficult to configure as compared to others.

Tests and results



On the performance front the device performed same as that of ZyXEL 70. We

started the test by downloading viruses in a sequence over HTTP and FTP. To test

the anti-spam performance, we downloaded approximately 1000 spams from our mail

server. At the first attempt the quantity of spam detected was very less

compared to others. But after we enabled an option called 'Use external

Database,' the no. of spams increased.



For checking the performance of IDS/IPS of this device, we ran a couple of
vulnerability scans and the results were good. In our test with Nessus this UTM

performed well compared to others. The Nessus report showed zero warnings and

zero holes for this device. Then we tried to jam its LAN port by flooding the

device with five different clients from its private network. Internet access got

blocked and it was not able to detect and block the attack. We tested the device

for denial-of-service attack and for this we ran the test from the public

network and attacked its Public IP. The attack failed and the device kept

working without any errors or performance loss. We also ran a set of sniffing

attacks-the device was able to detect it, but was not able to detect the actual

source from where the attack was generating. And it was also not able to block

the attack.

Bottomline: Considering its features, it is good for SOHO users and is

perfect for the budget conscious buyers.