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 13:42:18 -0700
Heh. That also suprised me when I started working w/ PIX. The fact you needed some sort of NAT statement to pass traffic regardless whether you were NATing had me shaking my head. Not too suprising I guess, since if I recall, PIXes came from the Cisco aquisition of a company called Network Translation.

PIXes arn't really routers either, like many firewalls. This is evident by the fact that PIXes can't route traffic back out the same interface it received the traffic on. You have to be concious about these limitations when doing network design in the presence of PIXes.

For instance, if you want to stand up a small VPN access router on a typical small LAN where the PIX is the default route, the VPN router can't be put in parallel with the PIX unless you either: a) change the LAN's default route to the VPN router (bad if most traffic taking the default route is bound for the internet, it'd just get bounced right to the PIX and put load on your poor little access router). b) put static routes for the appropriate networks on all hosts (yeah right). c) run a dynamic routing protocl on all hosts (not gonna happen). The solution in these situations, aside from buying a new "core" or "choke" router for the network, is to put the inside interface of the VPN access router off of a DMZ interface of a PIX, or spare interface if available. The PIX is perfectly happy to route the traffic to your router as long as it passes through the PIX and exits a different interface. Always seemed kind of silly to me.

- Jim


Ben Nelson wrote:

-----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-----

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html


--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|         Jim Burwell - Sr. Systems/Network/Security Engineer, JSBC         |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| "I never let my schooling get in the way of my education." - Mark Twain   |
| "UNIX was never designed to keep people from doing stupid things, because |
|  that policy would also keep them from doing clever things." - Doug Gwyn  |
| "Cool is only three letters away from Fool" - Mike Muir, Suicyco          |
| "..Government in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst     |
|  state an intolerable one.." - Thomas Paine, "Common Sense" (1776)        |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|   Email:  jimb@jsbc.cc                              ICQ UIN:  1695089     |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  Reply problems ?  Turn off the "sign" function in email prog.  Blame MS. |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+



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