Re: [Full-Disclosure] PIX vs CheckPoint

From: Ben Nelson (lists_at_venom600.org)
Date: 06/30/04

  • Next message: Gregory A. Gilliss: "Re: [Full-Disclosure] Name One Web Site Compromised by Download.Ject?" 
    To: Cyril Guibourg <plonk-o-matic@teaser.fr>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 12:49:24 -0600

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    You must have some static's in place then, which is a static 'NAT'
    translation.

    Cyril Guibourg wrote:
    | "Otero, Hernan (EDS)" <HOtero@lanchile.cl> writes:
    |
    |
    |>I think you do, because at least a nat 0 itīs needed to get traffic
    passing
    |>through the pix.
    |
    |
    | This is odd, I do have a running config under 6.2 without any nat
    statement.
    |
    | _______________________________________________
    | Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
    | Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFA4wsz3cL8qXKvzcwRArrMAJ9Otrq2qHTR4JV2ajPs7bemcR4WwwCcD++K
    LO+GQKUn4B8NRt8zbCq2GaI=
    =DTNj
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    _______________________________________________
    Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
    Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html

  • Next message: Gregory A. Gilliss: "Re: [Full-Disclosure] Name One Web Site Compromised by Download.Ject?"

    Relevant Pages

    • RE: [Full-Disclosure] PIX vs CheckPoint
      ... because at least a nat 0 itīs needed to get traffic passing ... Subject: [Full-Disclosure] PIX vs CheckPoint ... Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html ...
      (Full-Disclosure)
    • Re: Weird Problem...
      ... Unless nat is running how could your computers ... -- mbueide charter (dot) net. ...
      (freebsd-questions)
    • Re: [Full-Disclosure] PIX vs CheckPoint
      ... AFAIK, a PIX can operate without NAT. ... Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. ...
      (Full-Disclosure)