[FW-1] AW: [FW-1] NGX Hotfix Confusion !

And if you have some troubles, CP will ask you to upgrade to HFA03 before you can get any support from them ;-)) / hv -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Mailing list for discussion of Firewall-1 [mailto:FW-1- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Im Auftrag von fwguru Gesendet: Dienstag, 18. Juli 2006 06:23

[FW-1] IPSO 4.0.1

Hi, I am in urgent need of a copy of IPSO 4.0.1 and documentation. If anyone could please help, I am more than willing to share anything that is Check Point related for our software subscription. Thanks [EMAIL PROTECTED] Christopher McGill CCSE, CCSA, CCNA, MCP This e-mail and any

Re: [FW-1] IPSO 4.0.1

Hi, I am in urgent need of a copy of IPSO 4.0.1 and documentation. If anyone could please help, I am more than willing to share anything that is Check Point related for our software subscription. Thanks https://knowledgemedia.nokia.com/content/1610285/ipso.tgz You may find

[FW-1] SecuRemote NG,NGX does not store passwords anymore

Hello, In the old SecuRemote 4.1 there was an option to save passwords local for example 8 hours. When in autoconnect mode the user does not have to authentificate again, the client will do the connect automatically. With the new NGX R60 client there is no such option any more. The

[FW-1] fe: Firewall slowdown?

The Active Streaming Mechanism is used in the following: • Error concealment • Header spoofing • Directory listing • ASCII only response • Send Error Page checked (R60/R55W) Any defense that sends an HTML error page to the client uses ASM. The main difference between ASM and PSM (Passive

[FW-1] Web Intelligence

From:fwguru [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Web intelligence The following features require a Web Intelligence license: • MCP • SQL injection • Cmd injection • LDAP injection • Header spoofing • Directory listing • Error Concealment • HTTP method Regards, Neil Delacruz If I need a license

[FW-1] DCE-RPC Problems with R61

Hi, If we want to access our exchange servers with outlook through with secureclient SmartDefense blocks the connection with the following error message. No rule number is given. Client (Office Mode) - Server Dest Port 135 DCE-RPC enforcement violation. Source IP in port command is different

Re: [FW-1] DCE-RPC Problems with R61

Sorry. I was thinking of a similar issue where a rule 995 blocks the connection. However, it could well be the same problem. Jeremy Lieb CCSE-NG CCSE+NG Firewall Administrator Open Text Corporation 100 Tri-State Int'l Pkwy Third Floor Lincolnshire, IL 60069 18472679330 ext 4395

Re: [FW-1] DCE-RPC Problems with R61

Am Dienstag, 18. Juli 2006 16:23 schrieb Jeremy Lieb: There is supposedly a hotfix version of Secure Client based on the current HFA1 for NGX build. However, my vendor has been having trouble acquiring it from Checkpoint. The article number with the info is #sk31818. Hi, this connection is

Re: [FW-1] Problem to acces to the owa using User Author

Hi With the non-transparent method, i have 2 windows login, the first I logon successfully but the second(that is my server with owa) I have the problem, I prove all the options you mean but I can't get a solution. Any idea? Thanks Pablo -Mensaje original- De: Mailing list for

Re: [FW-1] DCE-RPC Problems with R61

There is supposedly a hotfix version of Secure Client based on the current HFA1 for NGX build. However, my vendor has been having trouble acquiring it from Checkpoint. The article number with the info is #sk31818. Jeremy Lieb CCSE-NG CCSE+NG Firewall Administrator Open Text Corporation 100

Re: [FW-1] IPSO 4.0.1

Hi, I really appreciate you sharing this with me. Could I ask a last favour do you have IPSO 3.8.1 Build 29, I would really appreciate a copy of this also. I have a CCSE Accelerated NGX courseware book, which I used to complete the exam, if this would be of any use to you as a return

[FW-1] ConnectControl

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Hi, i want to configure connectControl in SecurePlatform. So i have a rule soucre: ANY Destination:LogicalServer(Public IP, with group of two web servers). The problem is that i don't have to do a static nat because i have two web servers the

[FW-1] SPLAT R60 or R61 - Mount USB Pen Drive

Has anyone successfully mounted a USB pen drive under SPLAT R60 or R61? I have to pre-build several SPLAT boxes using the upgrade_import method and it would be a real time saver not having to connect these devices to the network to get the upgrade_export file. None of these devices have a floppy.

Re: [FW-1] ConnectControl

What have you set the logical server type to for http traffic (http or other)? HTTP type requires you to setup a static NAT tranlation for each web server as after inital connection and additional communication is direct from the web client to the web server. Where as other uses NAT to

[FW-1] problem with backup command on NGX

I have problem with backup on secure platform. I try use scp connection but I have error failed to transer package to remote host. When i try use command line interface, durig backup proces, I must manually write password to the remote host. where is the problem What is wrong

Re: [FW-1] SPLAT R60 or R61 - Mount USB Pen Drive

1. Log in to expert mode. 2. Verify that you have the needed kernel modules loaded. type lsmod | more 3. By default, Red Hat loads usb-uhci and usbcore on startup. But you'll need to load an additional module called usb-storage in order to get a flash drive working. To do this,

Re: [FW-1] ConnectControl

Connect Control module license is not included with regular Checkpoint License. You will have to buy connect Control Module license to use this capability. Although it has very limited capabilities as compared to other load sharing products. Thanks, -Original Message- From: Mailing

Re: [FW-1] SPLAT R60 or R61 - Mount USB Pen Drive

If you try to install any additional software on the SPLAT box, you will void the TAC support from Checkpoint. cisco4ng Chris McGill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1. Log in to expert mode. 2. Verify that you have the needed kernel modules loaded. type lsmod | more 3. By default, Red Hat

Re: [FW-1] Site-to-Site VPN with Cisco PIX and NGAI R55

On 7/17/06, cisco4ng [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What you're saying is NOT true. What happened if the Cisco devices decided to send type 1 instead of type 4 in during the phase I exchange. The best option to do this if this happen is to modify the IKE_largest_possible_subnet from true to

Re: [FW-1] SPLAT R60 or R61 - Mount USB Pen Drive

He's not installing anything extra. This is all built in to Splat. It doesn't seem to work under R60, but I've had pretty good luck under R61. The quick and dirty way to mount the flash drive is to skip step 5, and issue the command: tail -f /var/log/messages Then, insert the USB drive, and

[FW-1] NAT Rule over IPSEC Tunnel

I have an IPSEC tunnel between us and a vendor, and the vendor needs to get to a couple of servers, but the IP's of these server conflicts with something on their end. They have asked me to NAT these servers to 2 other IP's. I have never Done this, and I am unsure on how to format the NAT

[FW-1] Quick question on VPN monitoring

Hello everyone, Do you know if Check Point or someone else than Check Point, offers a tool for Check Point NG AI R55W VPN-1 Pro, similar to the built-in tool of Check Point VPN-1 Edge, to monitor your Site-to-Site VPNs? I just find it odd that there's such a tool through the WEB Interface of

Re: [FW-1] SPLAT R60 or R61 - Mount USB Pen Drive

Greetings, I don't know of any reason why mounting a USB drive would make the TAC not support your system. The only thing I could think of would be if you changed fstab and caused your machine to not bootwell they'll troubleshoot it for a bit, then probably ask you to reinstall Splat =)

Re: [FW-1] NAT Rule over IPSEC Tunnel

Sean, From what I am reading the simple way would be to on your firewall Address Translation do a manual nat. Address translation tab original Source=vendor ip coming inbound Destination=servernode (node with made up ip address vendor will target) Service=any Translated Source=original

Re: [FW-1] NAT Rule over IPSEC Tunnel

What Allen said is correct but not completely. In addition, you also need to put both of the real IPs of the server and the 'fake IPs of the server in your Local Encryption Domain. Under the vpn manager simplified mode of that particular VPN, make sure you do NOT check the box that

[FW-1] Differences between R55w and NGx R60

can you guys help me with this? SecureRemote is not my strongest point. I have a AI R55w with HFA_04 standalone firewall. I can connect to it via SecureRemote just fine. Everything works. When I upgrade to NGx R60 and apply a new NGx license, I can not connect with

Re: [FW-1] Differences between R55w and NGx R60

Is the date on the Gateway, Management server, or Secure Remote client incorrect? That could invalidate the certificate and give you errors like what you are seeing. Jeremy Lieb CCSE-NG CCSE+NG Firewall Administrator Open Text Corporation 100 Tri-State Int'l Pkwy Third Floor Lincolnshire, IL

Re: [FW-1] NAT Rule over IPSEC Tunnel

Also, if you are using communities - beware of the properties disabling nat inside communities as well. On 18/07/06, Allen Bass [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sean, From what I am reading the simple way would be to on your firewall Address Translation do a manual nat. Address translation tab

Re: [FW-1] Differences between R55w and NGx R60

The Standalone Checkpoint box (i.e Management server/Firewall) is a nokia IP650 with the clock sync with a Datum GPS time server and the clock is correct. Same thing with the SecureRemote client. That same client can connect to an R55w standalone firewall just fine. However, when it

[FW-1] SecureRemote connection to a checkpoint firewall that sits behind a Cisco Pix doing static NAT for that CP firewall

Need to get your input on this one since I do not design the customer network. I just support this complex configuration. here we go. The clock on the Checkpoint, Cisco Pix and the Windows XP are sync via an external stratum 0 GPS source. 0) Pix is running Code 7.1(2).

Re: [FW-1] SecureRemote connection to a checkpoint firewall that sits behind a Cisco Pix doing static NAT for that CP firewall

This used to work, haven't tried this with the newer versions... http://www.spy-hunter.com/SecureClienttoaNATedFWfinal.pdf -GS -Original Message- From: Mailing list for discussion of Firewall-1 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of cisco4ng Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 6:08 PM To: