RE: [Full-Disclosure] PIX vs CheckPoint

["James Patterson Wicks" <pwicks@xxxxxxxxxx>]

That is odd.  When dealing with a Pix firewall, no traffic can go out an 
interface without some sort of translation statement.

Even the default configuration has this:

     nat (inside) 1 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 0 0

There must be either a static or dynamic translation statement in your 
configuration.


-----Original Message-----
From: full-disclosure-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:full-disclosure-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Cyril Guibourg
Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 2:18 PM
To: Otero, Hernan (EDS)
Cc: full-disclosure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [Full-Disclosure] PIX vs CheckPoint

"Otero, Hernan         (EDS)" <HOtero@xxxxxxxxxxx> 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



This e-mail is the property of Oxygen Media, LLC.  It is intended only for the 
person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is 
privileged, confidential, or otherwise protected from disclosure. Distribution 
or copying of this e-mail or the information contained herein by anyone other 
than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in 
error, please immediately notify us by sending an e-mail to 
postmaster@xxxxxxxxxx and destroy all electronic and paper copies of this 
e-mail.


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