Hi,
What are the features /gains /problems (communication? log loss?)
between Distributed vs Standalone Deployment for SPLAT ? Which
deployment method do you prefer and why?
Regards
Scanned by Check Point Total Security Gateway.
=
To set
Le 30/09/2011 14:48, a bv a écrit :
Hi,
What are the features /gains /problems (communication? log loss?)
between Distributed vs Standalone Deployment for SPLAT ? Which
deployment method do you prefer and why?
if you can afford one smartcenter per gateway, keep standalone deployment;
as soon
Are you using the FW's external IP for service NAT?
From: Eamonn Twohig etwo...@qcdata.com
To: FW-1-MAILINGLIST@AMADEUS.US.CHECKPOINT.COM
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 7:03 PM
Subject: [FW-1] Odd http requests after upgrade to R75.20
Hi all,
We've a bit
The actual IP, no. We have a /27 available, so say the gw is at 1.2.3.4,
well the web server is NAT'ed behind 1.2.3.5, ftp is behind 1.2.3.6,
smtp is behind 1.2.3.7, dns is behind 1.2.3.8, etc.
For a test, we tried NAT'ing the web server behind 1.2.3.9, and we went
with auto-NAT this time as we
It's never been possible in the past versions. The SmartCenter compiles the
policy and pushes the compiled code to the firewall.
Have you opened a support case to ask about your version? Have you tried
mounting the hard
drive in another computer to see if you can retrieve its files?
Ray
It is not possible to restore a smartcenter from the files on a gateway
(without MASSIVE manual intervention). The objects.C compiled for a gateway
is incompatible with objects_5_0.C on the manager, and policy is darn well
nearly impossible.
Your best bet is to try to recover as much as possible
I opened a Task for this today. It's a known issue, documented
(somewhat) as a limitation of R75.20
It also kills access to Voyager in IPSO.
-Pierre
On 9/30/2011 1:27 PM, Eamonn Twohig wrote:
The actual IP, no. We have a /27 available, so say the gw is at 1.2.3.4,
well the web server is
