Is the any any any rule in both directions?? What are
you seeing in the logs when you attempt to make these
connections?? Please provide more information for a
specific fix to your problem.
PK
--- Patrick James [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I have a FW1 version 4.1 SP2 installation on WinNT
.
remember syn syn/ack ack
--- Zachary Uram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
so then firewall totally helpless to DoS attack?
that sounds really bad
there must be some way around this
such as all packets are encrypted to u and are
ignored by default
On Thu, 7 Jun 2001, patrick kerry wrote
There is no mechanism to stop a DOS attack on the fire
box. Actually on most firewalls a true DOS attack is
impossible to stop. Have your Firewall admin allow
the ICMP packets inbound from only that mail server
(host). I doubt if your ISP will launch a DOS attack
against you, even if they did
--- Steve Riley (MCS) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I think we all here agree that encryption is a good
thing. I won't
preach to the choir by enumerating the reasons. But
what about when
encryption prevents legitimate inspection?
If you are speaking of a VPN, encryption and
authentication
Bad implementation of IPSEC(RUVPN)
WebBlocker engine is weak
Proxied services are prone to failure
No double password verification
GPM constantly crashes and is the only easy way to
manage the firewall.
Watchguard support is weak
--- David Ishmael [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hey all,
Anyone
If your only tool is a hammer than every problem
becomes a nail.
--- Ben Nagy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Michael Batchelder
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2001 1:03 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re:
Since you are looking for a script to accomplish this
task as opposed to just making the changes manually.
Which would be easily done in notepad and then applied
to the PIX. Unless using conduits is posing a problem
for you the upgraded PIX OS's still support conduits
and you can use acls on
Which security experts?? I would like names so I never
make the mistake of consulting with them.
--- Steve Riley (MCS) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Some security experts claim that NAT could be used
as a firewall (or
let's say, some means of hiding the internal
network). I have a question
about
Another important point to remember is that any
service that is allowed outbound on your firewall will
most likely allow the same service inbound as a
response to a request from a trusted internal user.
Even a seemingly harmless user can create many
problems unknowingly.
P
--- [EMAIL
You need to refine the list of ports that are being
scanned. Only set the triggers on ports that are open
on you systems, certainly this is not 1000 ports.
Also you should not be so concerned about a particular
port being scanned. You should be more worried about
one source IP address scanning
Any network person whose systems were compromised in
the last round of these attacks IS lucky!! Lucky they
have jobs at all, the security patches for this
vuneribilty had been out forever - tisk -tisk to
anyone irresponsible enough to overlook the obvious.
Also, if your system was compromised
11 matches
Mail list logo
