Right so all http traffic other than http traffic destined to
10.20.30.40 gets inspected by the custom class correct?

On 3/23/12, Kingsley Charles <[email protected]> wrote:
> It will not go to the default class because I have a permit any any in the
> access-list and hence it fall into the custom class.
>
> With regards
> Kings
>
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 6:40 AM, Eugene Pefti
> <[email protected]>wrote:
>
>>  And the second bullet to this question is whether any HTTP matching and
>> inspection is expected in the first place by the default class as per
>> Kings
>> config.****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> *From:* Joe Astorino [mailto:[email protected]]
>> *Sent:* 22 March 2012 17:55
>>
>> *To:* Piotr Kaluzny
>> *Cc:* Eugene Pefti; [email protected]
>> *Subject:* Re: [OSL | CCIE_Security] Application not inspected once
>> deniede****
>>
>>  ** **
>>
>> So if I am understanding you correctly, the end expected result in this
>> situation is that HTTP flows to 10.20.30.40 are NOT inspected but HTTP
>> flows to any other address ARE inspected? ****
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 5:38 PM, Piotr Kaluzny <[email protected]>
>> wrote:****
>>
>> Guys,
>>
>> "Deny" ACL entry actually matches a class. Not like with MQC (earlier I
>> mentioned MPF - sorry for that, I was thinking about MQC). Then when you
>> apply an action for this class in the policy, instead of enabling the
>> feature (what normally happens for "permit" entries) you actually disable
>> it.
>>
>> For example you don't want to inspect TCP 21 between host A and B as FTP
>> but you want to keep inspection for all other src/dst over TCP 21 . If you
>> create a class-map for this traffic and apply no action in the policy, the
>> class inspection_default kicks in (with "inspect ftp") because inspection
>> was NOT actually performed in user-defined class.
>>
>> For the class with "deny" + inspect, again the flow matches the class AND
>> inspection is applied (actually being turned off), which means that other
>> classes with "inspect" for this flow will not be checked (including class
>> inspection_default).
>>
>> Hopefully makes more sense now.
>>
>> Regards,
>> ****
>>
>> --
>> Piotr Kaluzny
>> CCIE #25665 (Security), CCSP, CCNP
>> Sr. Support Engineer - IPexpert, Inc.
>> URL: http://www.IPexpert.com
>>
>> ****
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 9:44 PM, Joe Astorino <[email protected]>
>> wrote:****
>>
>> If both are doing action "inspect" that is the way I understood it yeah,
>> but evidently I am missing something.  Anxiously awaiting a response from
>> somebody that knows what they are talking about more than I do haha****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 4:40 PM, Eugene Pefti <[email protected]>
>> wrote:****
>>
>> Oh, Christ...****
>>
>> In plain old English it should have said:****
>>
>> If you match the traffic for HTTP inspection in your custom class than the
>> ASA will not match the same HTTP traffic in the default class.****
>>
>> Correct ?****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> *From:* Joe Astorino [mailto:[email protected]]
>> *Sent:* 22 March 2012 13:31
>> *To:* Piotr Kaluzny****
>>
>>
>> *Cc:* Eugene Pefti; [email protected]
>> *Subject:* Re: [OSL | CCIE_Security] Application not inspected once
>> deniede****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> You guys have made me go doubt myself (hate when that happens!)
>> haha...here is how I understood the technology to work, based on the
>> following from the 8.0 configuration guide.  I take this to mean that if
>> the packet matched the FIRST class map you have there matching on the ACL
>> and it ALSO matched the class default policy, but the "feature type" was
>> the same (inspect) that the action taken would be solely based on the
>> first
>> match (deny the flow in this case).  What am I missing?
>>
>> *Feature Matching Guidelines Within a Policy Map
>>
>> See the following guidelines for how a packet matches class maps in a
>> policy map:
>>
>> 1. A packet can match only one class map in the policy map for each
>> feature type.
>>
>> 2. When the packet matches a class map for a feature type, the security
>> appliance does not attempt to match it to any subsequent class maps for
>> that feature type.
>>
>> 3. If the packet matches a subsequent class map for a different feature
>> type, however, then the security appliance also applies the actions for
>> the
>> subsequent class map, if supported. See the "Incompatibility of Certain
>> Feature Actions" section for more information about unsupported
>> combinations.
>>
>> For example, if a packet matches a class map for connection limits, and
>> also matches a class map for application inspection, then both class map
>> actions are applied.
>>
>> If a packet matches a class map for HTTP inspection, but also matches
>> another class map that includes HTTP inspection, then the second class map
>> actions are not applied. *
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Joe Astorino <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>> > This is probably a dumb question, but I don't care : )  I don't
>> > understand the logic of this situation.  Why should the traffic be
>> > inspected if it is explicitly denied in the first class map?  At first
>> > glance, I would think it works as it should -- The traffic flow comes
>> > in, it is denied for inspection in the first class-map.  Why would it
>> > pass through and be inspected by the class default?
>> >
>> > On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 4:05 PM, Piotr Kaluzny <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>> >> Eugene,
>> >>
>> >> I don't believe "match not" is available in L3/4 class-map, at least it
>> was
>> >> not in older versions of code
>> >>
>> >> Regards,
>> >> --
>> >> Piotr Kaluzny
>> >> CCIE #25665 (Security), CCSP, CCNP
>> >> Sr. Support Engineer - IPexpert, Inc.
>> >> URL: http://www.IPexpert.com
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 7:48 PM, Eugene Pefti <[email protected]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Wouldn’t it be better to use “match not” statement in the first
>> class-map
>> >>> to pass it to the default inspection class ?
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> From: Piotr Kaluzny [mailto:[email protected]]
>> >>> Sent: 22 March 2012 11:43
>> >>> To: Kingsley Charles
>> >>> Cc: Eugene Pefti; [email protected]
>> >>> Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_Security] Application not inspected once
>> deniede
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> It won't hit any other class, again it is a little bit different with
>> >>> "deny" in ACL than in MPF.
>> >>>
>> >>> The logic here is that the "deny" ACL entry actually matches the class
>> as
>> >>> long as an action (like e.g. inspect) is configured for this class.
>> >>> The
>> >>> action will not be performed, however - it turns the specified action
>> off
>> >>> for the flow - useful with "inspect" when you want to only allow
>> passive or
>> >>> active FTP, not both.
>> >>>
>> >>> Regards,
>> >>> --
>> >>> Piotr Kaluzny
>> >>> CCIE #25665 (Security), CCSP, CCNP
>> >>> Sr. Support Engineer - IPexpert, Inc.
>> >>> URL: http://www.IPexpert.com
>> >>>
>> >>> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 7:04 PM, Kingsley Charles
>> >>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> The denied http traffic should have been inspected by the next default
>> >>> class map which is not happening.
>> >>>
>> >>> With regards
>> >>> Kings
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Eugene Pefti <[email protected]
>> >
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> I fear I didn't understand your question, Kings.
>> >>>
>> >>> Isn't what you are doing with placing the custom web class-map in
>> front of
>> >>> the default inspection class map to have the ASA inspection match
>> first on
>> >>> the traffic to 10.20.30.40.
>> >>>
>> >>> Or your point why HTTP is not inspected in the first place if we use
>> >>> "deny" ACE? I believe we "permit" in the ACE to define the traffic
>> that will
>> >>> be matched and "deny" to exclude it from matching
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Eugene
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> From: Kingsley Charles <[email protected]>
>> >>> Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 12:59:24 +0530
>> >>> To: <[email protected]>
>> >>> Subject: [OSL | CCIE_Security] Application not inspected once deniede
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Hi all
>> >>>
>> >>> In ASA, once if we deny the flow for inspection, it never gets
>> inspected
>> >>> back in other policies. In the below configuration, http traffic to
>> >>> 10.20.30.40 is not inspected by the  class inspection_default.
>> >>>
>> >>> Any comments?
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> HTTP traffic to 10.20.30.40 not inspect under  class
>> >>> inspection_default
>> >>>
>> >>> access-list web extended deny tcp any host 10.20.30.40 eq www
>> >>> access-list web extended permit tcp any any eq www
>> >>>
>> >>> class-map web
>> >>>  match access-list web
>> >>>
>> >>> policy-map global_policy
>> >>>  class web
>> >>>   inspect http
>> >>>  class inspection_default
>> >>>   inspect dns preset_dns_map
>> >>>   inspect ftp
>> >>>   inspect h323 h225
>> >>>   inspect h323 ras
>> >>>   inspect netbios
>> >>>   inspect rsh
>> >>>   inspect rtsp
>> >>>   inspect skinny
>> >>>   inspect esmtp
>> >>>   inspect sqlnet
>> >>>   inspect sunrpc
>> >>>   inspect tftp
>> >>>   inspect sip
>> >>>   inspect xdmcp
>> >>>   inspect http
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> With regards
>> >>> Kings
>> >>>
>> >>> _______________________________________________ For more information
>> >>> regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit
>> www.ipexpert.com
>> >>> Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out
>> >>> www.PlatinumPlacement.com
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training,
>> please
>> >>> visit www.ipexpert.com
>> >>>
>> >>> Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out
>> >>> www.PlatinumPlacement.com
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training,
>> please
>> >> visit www.ipexpert.com
>> >>
>> >> Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out
>> >> www.PlatinumPlacement.com
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Regards,
>> >
>> > Joe Astorino
>> > CCIE #24347
>> > http://astorinonetworks.com
>> >
>> > "He not busy being born is busy dying" - Dylan
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>>
>> Joe Astorino
>> CCIE #24347
>> http://astorinonetworks.com
>>
>> "He not busy being born is busy dying" - Dylan****
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>>
>> Joe Astorino
>> CCIE #24347
>> http://astorinonetworks.com
>>
>> "He not busy being born is busy dying" - Dylan****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>>
>> Joe Astorino
>> CCIE #24347
>> http://astorinonetworks.com
>>
>> "He not busy being born is busy dying" - Dylan****
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please
>> visit www.ipexpert.com
>>
>> Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out
>> www.PlatinumPlacement.com
>>
>

-- 
Sent from my mobile device

Regards,

Joe Astorino
CCIE #24347
http://astorinonetworks.com

"He not busy being born is busy dying" - Dylan
_______________________________________________
For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit 
www.ipexpert.com

Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out 
www.PlatinumPlacement.com

Reply via email to