full-disclosure - PIX vs CheckPoint

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <B37374D6F496CE40AF4227E7561838920A058A4B@2kcorreoscl03.lanchile.cl>
From: HOtero at lanchile.cl (Otero, Hernan         (EDS))
Subject: PIX vs CheckPoint

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@...ser.fr] 
Sent: Mi?rcoles, 30 de Junio de 2004 4:30
To: Laurent LEVIER
Cc: Darkslaker; full-disclosure@...ts.netsys.com
Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] PIX vs CheckPoint

Laurent LEVIER <llevier@...osnet.com> 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