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: <40E30B34.6090007@venom600.org>
From: lists at venom600.org (Ben Nelson)
Subject: PIX vs CheckPoint

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

You must have some static's in place then, which is a static 'NAT'
translation.

Cyril Guibourg wrote:
| "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.
|
| _______________________________________________
| Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
| Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFA4wsz3cL8qXKvzcwRArrMAJ9Otrq2qHTR4JV2ajPs7bemcR4WwwCcD++K
LO+GQKUn4B8NRt8zbCq2GaI=
=DTNj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----