unsuscribe anabel@udc.es

unsuscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: BGMP

Firfewall-1 listens to a series of management ports on all interfaces if the "Accept VPN-1 Firewall " implied rule under Security Policy is checked. Bombarding the management ports with malformed / oversized packets could cause old (2.1) FW-1 to hang hard - a DoS. I don't know if they

Why netscreen instead of say sonicwall

I guess if it doesn't have a point and click interface you wanna be engineers don't like it! There is nothing wrong with the PIX firewall. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 10:20 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Firewalls

Gauntlet NAT issues

Hi, We are running Gauntlet 5.5 on Win NT 4.0 SP5+hotfixes coming out of our ears. I am at present having issues setting up static NAT. Dynamic NAT runs 100%. The static rule we are using is local IP: 192.168.x.151, global IP: x.x.x.105, with the global interface set to external (untrusted).

RE: Why netscreen instead of say sonicwall

agreed... -Original Message- From: John Maestrale [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 7:26 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: Why netscreen instead of say sonicwall I guess if it doesn't have a point and click interface you wanna be engineers don't like it! There

RE: BGMP

Thiago, 264 isused for theBGMP Description: Protocol suite: TCP/IP. Type: Application layer protocol. Port: 264 (TCP). bgmp, Border Gateway Multicast Protocol.

Netscreen problem with VPN

Hi All, I have the following problem with the Netscreen VPN access and cannot find any answers in the knowledge base. Local distributor cannot help either. Internet | | Cisco 805 | | Netscreen 5xp |

RE: Why netscreen instead of say sonicwall

I like the old fashioned style of point and click . . . Point at the keyboard and hear those keys click!!! -Original Message- From: Hudson Delbert J Contr 61 CS/SCBN [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 11:35 AM To: 'John Maestrale'; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE:

Use Auth via RADIUS for HTTPS

I have an external web server accessible via HTTPS only that I want to require user authentication for via RADIUS. When I try to install the policy I get the following error: User authentication is not yet available for service HTTPS If I switch to just using HTTP, everything works fine and

Re: Why netscreen instead of say sonicwall

On 5 Mar 2002, at 10:25, John Maestrale wrote: I guess if it doesn't have a point and click interface you wanna be engineers don't like it! There is nothing wrong with the PIX firewall. -Original Message- 32K of unedited list digest snipped The ways in which the netwcreen and

RE: Why netscreen instead of say sonicwall

On 5 Mar 2002, at 9:35, Hudson Delbert J Contr 61 CS/SCBN wrote: agreed... -Original Message- This is, I think, a new low in signal-to-noise, even for this list: 33K of quoted material to add a single word and nearly NO information at all DG

RE: Gauntlet NAT issues

OK, a couple of quick points... 1. Gauntlet 5.5 on NT is unstable and weird. Try reinstalling the product from scratch - it may well start working as you expect. No, I am not joking. 2. The idea about Gauntlet is that you _don't_ use NAT. It's a proxy firewall. Have a good long think about your

RE: Why netscreen instead of say sonicwall

I will comment concerning the original request. I used to recommend Sonicwalls and they normally functioned fine for general firewalling in small shops. At that time there were no other appliances for that market, at least that I knew of. My first issue with them was that when we were going to

RE: Gauntlet NAT issues

2. ok problem here. Gauntlet NT (and only NT) can't bind proxies to ips. This really hoses the whole proxy formula i think :). --- Ben Nagy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OK, a couple of quick points... 1. Gauntlet 5.5 on NT is unstable and weird. Try reinstalling the product from scratch -

RE: Gauntlet NAT issues

Leaving aside the fact that 5.5NT is unsupported and a version old, I never had any problems getting basic proxy operation to work. Are you talking about binding to IP addresses that aren't the same as the external NIC of the box? If so, I really distantly recall that it might be a (lack of) arp

RE: Gauntlet NAT issues

No, i'm talking about binding a proxy (lets take http-gw) to just the internal ip address, so that you can bind other proxies (that will act differently) on the outside interface (port 80/443 as an example again). But like you said, its old an unsupported. --- Ben Nagy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

User AAA into a Secure Data Center

I am interesting in hearing from people who have implemented user based AAA for internal access to a secure data center or similar deployment. I've listed the methods I am familiar with: 1) Dynamic ACLs (Cisco Lock-and-key, Checkpoint client/session auth). Basically a one-time user