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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <82CB183EE984504CB89566128AEE6FD9343AFE@is6b>
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