[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [Full-Disclosure] PIX vs CheckPoint
- To: full-disclosure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: RE: [Full-Disclosure] PIX vs CheckPoint
- From: "Otero, Hernan (EDS)" <HOtero@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- 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@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Miércoles, 30 de Junio de 2004 4:30
To: Laurent LEVIER
Cc: Darkslaker; full-disclosure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] PIX vs CheckPoint
Laurent LEVIER <llevier@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 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