Ethical Hacking Learn to find vulnerabilities before the bad guys do! Gain real world hands on hacking experience in our state of the art hacking lab. Course designed and taught by expert instructors with years of penetration testing experience. 12 student maximum in every class. Certification attempt included in every package. | Computer Forensics Training at InfoSec Institute Gain the in-demand skills of a certified computer examiner, learn to recover trace data left behind by fraud, theft, and cybercrime perpetrators. Discover the source of computer crime and abuse at your organization so that it never happens again. All of our class sizes are guaranteed to be 12 students or less to facilitate one-on-one interaction with one of our expert instructors. |

| Subject: | RE: Unique POLICY NAT requirement |
|---|---|
| Date: | Tue, 26 Oct 2004 10:32:49 -0700 (PDT) |
Lamy, I appreciate your response.... I tried with access-list acl_out permit icmp any any comand. It doesn't show any icmp hit counts at all in access-lists. I have a doubt in the following command: static (intf-2,outside) tcp 192.168.0.46 25 10.10.0.46 25 netmask 255.255.255.255 When I use extended NATing like above, 192.168.0.46 and 10.10.0.46 are bound only for port 25...nothing else like other ports... 110 or 80 etc. If this is true, ICMP will not go through... Is there any other command to allow ICMP to IP address 192.168.0.46? Any tips will be appreciated. Wondering if anyone has implemented this type of solution. Thanks, Steve Lamy Vincent <VLamy@groupama-am.fr> wrote: Maybe there is an icmp policy defined on your PIX, like : icmp deny any echo outside or icmp deny any echo-reply intf-2 When you run the "show access-list" command, do you see some hitcnt on the icmp access-list? --------------------------------- De : steve ruben [mailto:seq404@yahoo.com] Envoyé : mercredi 20 octobre 2004 02:24 À : firewalls@securityfocus.com Objet : Unique POLICY NAT requirement Hello team, I have a unique policy NAT kind of a requirement. Description of the network: External customers------Internet cloud-------PIX (FWSM blade) ----SVR-1 + SVR-2 SVR-1 internal IP : 10.10.0.46 SVR-2 internal IP : 10.10.0.47 Two external IPs are mapped to two internal servers with extended NATing : 192.168.0.46 to 10.10.0.46 --- tcp port 25 192.168.0.47 to 10.10.0.47 --- tcp port 25 GOAL: My goal is to achieve the following: I should be able to send all out going UDP traffic from internal servers to outside world as 192.168.0.48 (as one single source IP) ? For external customers it should appear as one single IP ? 192.168.0.48. From outside cloud, I should also be able to telnet to external IPs 192.168.0.46 (port 25) and 192.168.0.47 (port 25). From outside cloud, I should also be able to ping 192.168.0.46 and 192.168.0.47 IP addresses. I have the following configuration for above requirement, I could achieve goals 1 and 2 but not 3. Please let me know if you have any better ideas to achieve all three goals: Is it possible to set up ICMP proxy on PIX firewall to respond for incoming ICMP queries from Internet cloud for internal servers (to achieve goal #3)? static (intf-2,outside) tcp 192.168.0.46 25 10.10.0.46 25 netmask 255.255.255.255 static (intf-2,outside) tcp 192.168.0.47 25 10.10.0.47 25 netmask 255.255.255.255 access-list acl_out permit tcp any host 192.168.0.46 eq 25 access-list acl_out permit tcp any host 192.168.0.47 eq 25 access-list acl_out permit icmp any host 192.168.0.46 access-list acl_out permit icmp any host 192.168.0.47 access-list police permit udp 10.10.0.0 255.255.255.0 any eq 9000 access-list police permit udp 10.10.0.0 255.255.255.0 any eq 9001 access-list police permit tcp 10.10.0.0 255.255.255.0 any access-list police permit icmp 10.10.0.0 255.255.255.0 any access-group police in interface intf-2 nat (intf-2) 10 access-list police global (intf-2) 10 192.168.0.48 --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? vote.yahoo.com - Register online to vote today! --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | RE: Iptables rules comparation, J.R. Barreras |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Iptables rules comparation, Phil Dyer |
| Previous by Thread: | RE: Unique POLICY NAT requirement, Lamy Vincent |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Unique POLICY NAT requirement, Stefan Deutinger |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |