RE: [Full-Disclosure] PIX vs CheckPoint
From: Otero, Hernan (EDS) (HOtero_at_lanchile.cl)
Date: 06/30/04
- Previous message: Harlan Carvey: "Re: [Full-Disclosure] Tools for checking for presence of adware remotely"
- Maybe in reply to: Darkslaker: "[Full-Disclosure] PIX vs CheckPoint"
- Next in thread: Cyril Guibourg: "Re: [Full-Disclosure] PIX vs CheckPoint"
- Reply: Cyril Guibourg: "Re: [Full-Disclosure] PIX vs CheckPoint"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
To: full-disclosure@lists.netsys.com Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 07:58:58 -0400
I think you do, because at least a nat 0 it´s needed to get traffic passing
through the pix.
-H
-----Original Message-----
From: Cyril Guibourg [mailto:plonk-o-matic@teaser.fr]
Sent: Miércoles, 30 de Junio de 2004 4:30
To: Laurent LEVIER
Cc: Darkslaker; full-disclosure@lists.netsys.com
Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] PIX vs CheckPoint
Laurent LEVIER <llevier@argosnet.com> writes:
Hi L2,
> At the NAT level, you have to know Pix is a NATing box and everything
> it does is based on NAT.
AFAIK, a PIX can operate without NAT. Did I miss something ?
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
- Previous message: Harlan Carvey: "Re: [Full-Disclosure] Tools for checking for presence of adware remotely"
- Maybe in reply to: Darkslaker: "[Full-Disclosure] PIX vs CheckPoint"
- Next in thread: Cyril Guibourg: "Re: [Full-Disclosure] PIX vs CheckPoint"
- Reply: Cyril Guibourg: "Re: [Full-Disclosure] PIX vs CheckPoint"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
