RE: [Full-Disclosure] PIX vs CheckPoint
From: Perrymon, Josh L. (PerrymonJ_at_bek.com)
Date: 06/30/04
- Previous message: Alexander: "[Full-Disclosure] SecurityLab report: The Top 10 Most Critical Vulnerabilities in June 2004"
- Maybe in reply to: Darkslaker: "[Full-Disclosure] PIX vs CheckPoint"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
To: "'Cyril Guibourg'" <plonk-o-matic@teaser.fr>, "Otero, Hernan (EDS)" <HOtero@lanchile.cl> Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 15:28:03 -0500
That is odd. You *must have some translations in place. Because you *must
have (2) different subnets. ( One outside and another on the inside ) So
when a packets transverses the pix and is sent outbound it must be
translated - Nat inside / Outside
or Nat 0 when using VPNs.
JP
-----Original Message-----
From: Cyril Guibourg [mailto:plonk-o-matic@teaser.fr]
Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 1:18 PM
To: Otero, Hernan (EDS)
Cc: full-disclosure@lists.netsys.com
Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] PIX vs CheckPoint
"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
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
- Previous message: Alexander: "[Full-Disclosure] SecurityLab report: The Top 10 Most Critical Vulnerabilities in June 2004"
- Maybe in reply to: Darkslaker: "[Full-Disclosure] PIX vs CheckPoint"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
