+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 11 to 17 of 17

Thread: Isa

  1. #11
    Senior Member delstar has much to be proud of delstar has much to be proud of delstar has much to be proud of delstar has much to be proud of delstar has much to be proud of delstar has much to be proud of delstar has much to be proud of delstar has much to be proud of delstar has much to be proud of
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    319
    i tried ISA...it sucked big time

  2. #12
    Member mrwall has a spectacular aura about mrwall has a spectacular aura about
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    42
    Well, Befor I start, I have completely no knowlege of ISA at all, but I think I'm ok when it comes to OPSEC related products.

    Now, the change should be obvious after documenting your security policy <No not your rulebase, your needs>. What sort of content passes thru your Proxy to your FW? most <if not all> can be monitored by simple INSPECt scripts <Phoneboy's HTTP script for example> that could be coded in no time while in bed, just define a function <#deffunc foobar> that accepts packets and then SNATs them to 0.0.0.0 <this is a special configuration in CP that tells FW-1 to use the outgoing interface's IP address, similar to the concept of MASQ> So, you wouldn't actually need the proxy anymore.

    On the other hand, asuming you really need the proxy and can't make without it. Then I suggest you'd go with inivctus' advice. Limit traffic to the FW from the Proxy alone and try to be as strict as possible. Just a small addition, you might want to use the proxy as your small network's FW and leave the heavyload on the FW for the DMZ and other sverers <that's what I do regularly>.

    About M$ providing me with a securtiy solution, i think I would not accept it for a simple reason. CP means the OPSEC alliance. In other words, when I bought CPNG I didn't onyl get a FW, I also got support for CVP, PKI, IDS, HA, etc.. from big names that I can relay on, also a good point that CP offers is INSPECT code, wich isn't provided by any opponant. The power of knowing your FW's language means that you guarantee the best of all worlds <simple example is Anti-Spoofing, I used to do it by CP's AS in the GUI, but after doing it by INSPECT code using the nets {} and netsof commands I got really better performance than I ever did.> yet, unfortunantly other competitors have completly ignored providing a language to their FWs making them either inconvineit, corrupted or both :-)

    Well, my own Advice,

    If your just doing a small network that just needs raw power and not a huge e-commerce site, then go for StoneSoft's StoneGate it has proven to be ten-times better than CP's performance <in my crude tests > but still, I'm a CP-wiz and I will die as a CP-wiz


    I've attached StoneSoft's comparison of their StoneGate vs. NextGeneration <aka. CPFW-1 5.0> for anyone interested in it

    Hope this helps,
    etsh911

  3. #13
    Senior Member iNViCTuS iNViCTuS iNViCTuS iNViCTuS iNViCTuS iNViCTuS iNViCTuS iNViCTuS iNViCTuS iNViCTuS
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    458
    Wow....Very impressive etsh....

    I am amazed every time I read posts by you that are at all related to Checkpoint.

  4. #14
    Member mrwall has a spectacular aura about mrwall has a spectacular aura about
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    42
    Ugh, forgot to say this, about your port-scan, this behaviour is a result of CP including fwui_trail.def wich has 'drop' and not 'vanish' drop mangles a packet befor it actually ignores it. This results in the 'closed' if you go thru your INSPECT code and s/drop/vanish, everything should be stealth :-).


    CP rules my world,
    etsh911

  5. #15
    Member mrwall has a spectacular aura about mrwall has a spectacular aura about
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    42
    Originally posted here by iNViCTuS
    Wow....Very impressive etsh....

    I am amazed every time I read posts by you that are at all related to Checkpoint.
    eow! thank you invictus

  6. #16
    Senior Member Sgt_B will become famous soon enough Sgt_B will become famous soon enough
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    177
    Errr...um....INSPECT code? I have no idea how get to that! Thanks for the explanation of why the ports are closed though. I will be using my ISA server as a 'glorified proxy', but I'm definately going to be keeping my FW-1! I just need to learn how to work the damn thing a bit better!
    Thanks guys!

  7. #17
    Member mrwall has a spectacular aura about mrwall has a spectacular aura about
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    42
    INSPECT is CP's core logic. Your rulebase is converted to INSPECT befor it is applied to your fwmodule. Look for *.pf files and in $FWDIR/lib/ those are written in INSPECT.

    I'd recommened learning INSPECT ASAP as it is the best way to get raw power outta your box <altough I tend to use the GUI sometimes for creating users and groups, but most of the rest is done using emacs >. You'd really feel a great diffrence....


    Note : to add 'vanish' to the GUI, just open $FWDIR/lib/setup.C and add

    : (vanish
    :type (vanish)
    :color ("Black")
    :icon-name ("icon-vanish")
    :text-rid ("61466")
    :windows-color (green)
    )

    To your
    :unix_actobj (
    section just below the other actions, and you'll be fine...

    There you go, this isn't documented anywhere else even on Phoneboy's site < http://www.phoneboy.com/faq/0134.html >

    If your system encounters any troubles with this addition then it is probably because of the installed SPs <I have encountered troubles myself > So, just open user.def and add

    deffunc my_vanish_macro {vanish;}

    And add
    :macro(my_vanish_macro)
    To the code

    Happy vanishing
    etsh911

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

 Security News

     Patches

       Security Trends

         How-To

           Buying Guides