[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [Full-Disclosure] PIX vs CheckPoint
- To: "Cyril Guibourg" <plonk-o-matic@xxxxxxxxx>, "Otero, Hernan (EDS)" <HOtero@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [Full-Disclosure] PIX vs CheckPoint
- From: "James Patterson Wicks" <pwicks@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 15:41:26 -0400
That is odd. When dealing with a Pix firewall, no traffic can go out an
interface without some sort of translation statement.
Even the default configuration has this:
nat (inside) 1 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 0 0
There must be either a static or dynamic translation statement in your
configuration.
-----Original Message-----
From: full-disclosure-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:full-disclosure-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Cyril Guibourg
Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 2:18 PM
To: Otero, Hernan (EDS)
Cc: full-disclosure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] PIX vs CheckPoint
"Otero, Hernan (EDS)" <HOtero@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> I think you do, because at least a nat 0 it´s 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
This e-mail is the property of Oxygen Media, LLC. It is intended only for the
person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is
privileged, confidential, or otherwise protected from disclosure. Distribution
or copying of this e-mail or the information contained herein by anyone other
than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in
error, please immediately notify us by sending an e-mail to
postmaster@xxxxxxxxxx and destroy all electronic and paper copies of this
e-mail.
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html