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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <87isd8ap1b.fsf@blackbox.babasse.net>
From: plonk-o-matic at teaser.fr (Cyril Guibourg)
Subject: PIX vs CheckPoint

"Otero, Hernan         (EDS)" <HOtero@...chile.cl> 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.