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
| ||
|
From: PerrymonJ at bek.com (Perrymon, Josh L.) Subject: PIX vs CheckPoint That is odd. You *must have some translations in place. Because you *must have (2) different subnets. ( One outside and another on the inside ) So when a packets transverses the pix and is sent outbound it must be translated - Nat inside / Outside or Nat 0 when using VPNs. JP -----Original Message----- From: Cyril Guibourg [mailto:plonk-o-matic@...ser.fr] Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 1:18 PM To: Otero, Hernan (EDS) Cc: full-disclosure@...ts.netsys.com Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] 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. _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists