Re: [Full-Disclosure] PIX vs CheckPoint

From: B3r3n (B3r3n_at_argosnet.com)
Date: 06/30/04

  • Next message: Edge, Ronald D: "RE: [Full-Disclosure] Name One Web Site Compromised by Download.Ject?" 
    To: Cyril Guibourg <plonk-o-matic@teaser.fr>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 20:26:18 +0200

    At 10:29 30/06/2004, Cyril Guibourg wrote:
    >AFAIK, a PIX can operate without NAT. Did I miss something ?
    Yes, NAT can be disabled on Pix.
    See the 'nat' command.

    Simply put the appropriate line syntax and it will behaves as a normal
    Firewall.
    But only behaves because no routing daemon, and Pix keeps managing packets
    as a NAT box, he just does not change the source IP

    Brgrds

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

  • Next message: Edge, Ronald D: "RE: [Full-Disclosure] Name One Web Site Compromised by Download.Ject?"

    Relevant Pages
    • Quantcast