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.




Network Security FullDisclosure
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Full-Disclosure] PIX vs CheckPoint

Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] PIX vs CheckPoint
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 12:49:24 -0600
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

You must have some static's in place then, which is a static 'NAT'
translation.

Cyril Guibourg wrote:
| "Otero, Hernan         (EDS)" <HOtero@lanchile.cl> writes:
|
|
|>I think you do, because at least a nat 0 it´s needed to get traffic
passing
|>through the pix.
|
|
| This is odd, I do have a running config under 6.2 without any nat
statement.
|
| _______________________________________________
| Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
| Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFA4wsz3cL8qXKvzcwRArrMAJ9Otrq2qHTR4JV2ajPs7bemcR4WwwCcD++K
LO+GQKUn4B8NRt8zbCq2GaI=
=DTNj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>