Patrick & Allen, Thanks for the responses -- helps loads. I'm still slightly confused.
I did a clear conduit expecting to block all incoming traffic. Following the clear conduit, I did a show conduit to verify there were not any conduits in operation. At that time, I was still able to receive web traffic at my workstation. For that matter, the conduit statements only applied to specific servers so why am I able to receive http at my workstation? I did try to PING an IP address which failed when I removed the conduits and worked when I restored "conduit permit icmp any any" -- that behaved as expected. Thanks, Steve ""Allen May"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Very true and a good point, but the original question was about conduits > which only apply to lower->higher. Higher->lower requires NAT. I > accidentally typed access-list below but meant conduit. ;) *slap self & get > more coffee*. It still applies but wasn't what I meant to say. > > Thanks for pointing that out though. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Patrick W. Bass > To: > Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2001 10:14 PM > Subject: Re: PIX conduit & access lists [7:26684] > > > > ""Allen May"" wrote in message > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > I'm not sure if this was answered or not, but a firewall always assumes > a > > > deny all at the end of the access-list for inbound. Outbound is > different > > > since it allows all by default. > > > > > > > Remeber this: Higher security level to lower security level, implicitly > > allowed. Lower security level to higher security level, implicitly > denied. > > Otherwise it gets tricky once you start messing with multipile DMZs. > > > > > Also, access-lists are the way to go since conduits will be phased out > in > > > the near future. > > > > > > Allen > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: Steve Alston > > > To: > > > Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 9:25 AM > > > Subject: Re: PIX conduit & access lists [7:26684] > > > > > > > > > > Carroll, > > > > Thanks for the reply. I'm using conduits now, but will switch to > > access > > > > lists in the future. (I'd like to fully understand the configuration > I > > > > inherited before I start making changes) Are implicit denys inserted > > > behind > > > > each conduit as well? > > > > > > > > > > > > ""Carroll Kong"" wrote in message > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > > > Implicit denys behind every access-list are inserted. Are you > > > > > mixing conduits and access-lists? You really should not. Use ALL > > > > conduits > > > > > or ALL access-lists. If both are used, conduits take priority and > > > > override > > > > > your access-lists. Access-lists are first match, conduits are any > > > match. > > > > > > > > > > At 09:24 AM 11/19/01 -0500, Steve Alston wrote: > > > > > >Does the PIX 506 require an explicit deny statement after setting > up > > a > > > > > >permit conduit or access list. > > > > > > > > > > > >I appear to be receiving more traffic (e.g. NTP) than my conduit > > > > statements > > > > > >allow. > > > > > > > > > > > >Thanks much, > > > > > >Steve > > > > > -Carroll Kong Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=27588&t=26684 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
