<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Allowing only low-risk of a url category in Next-Generation Firewall Discussions</title>
    <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/next-generation-firewall/allowing-only-low-risk-of-a-url-category/m-p/551001#M1582</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Hello everyone,&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;I have a requirement to adjust security policies in a way that only "white list" logic is enabled, and&amp;nbsp; for one specific rule I have to allow only the &lt;STRONG&gt;low-risk&lt;/STRONG&gt; category of given url category, for example &lt;STRONG&gt;training-and-tools&lt;/STRONG&gt;, and not &lt;STRONG&gt;high-risk&lt;/STRONG&gt; and &lt;STRONG&gt;medium-risk&lt;/STRONG&gt;. However, the rule should not block the medium and high risk of&amp;nbsp;training-and-tools eiher, as below there might be a policy for that allow the access. The problem is, if I write the policy and add URL categories of training and low-risk, it applies the "&lt;STRONG&gt;or&lt;/STRONG&gt;" logic, which means that it will allow the high-and medium risks of training, and all the other categories matched as low-risk as well (tried in practice, works as described). And if I use URL Filtering profile and define high-risk and medium-risk action as block, it will block the category, which achieves the goal of allowing only low-risk of the website, &lt;STRONG&gt;but&lt;/STRONG&gt; ignores the requirement just whitelisting, meaning if I have a policy below that allows access to that specific website, I will not hit that policy as I am being blocked from the above. What are the recommended solutions for this kind of issue? How do you usually deal with that? Any hint is appreciated, cause I am sure there should be a way that this works but I can't see it.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 26 Jul 2023 06:17:46 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Shams.G</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2023-07-26T06:17:46Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Allowing only low-risk of a url category</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/next-generation-firewall/allowing-only-low-risk-of-a-url-category/m-p/551001#M1582</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hello everyone,&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;I have a requirement to adjust security policies in a way that only "white list" logic is enabled, and&amp;nbsp; for one specific rule I have to allow only the &lt;STRONG&gt;low-risk&lt;/STRONG&gt; category of given url category, for example &lt;STRONG&gt;training-and-tools&lt;/STRONG&gt;, and not &lt;STRONG&gt;high-risk&lt;/STRONG&gt; and &lt;STRONG&gt;medium-risk&lt;/STRONG&gt;. However, the rule should not block the medium and high risk of&amp;nbsp;training-and-tools eiher, as below there might be a policy for that allow the access. The problem is, if I write the policy and add URL categories of training and low-risk, it applies the "&lt;STRONG&gt;or&lt;/STRONG&gt;" logic, which means that it will allow the high-and medium risks of training, and all the other categories matched as low-risk as well (tried in practice, works as described). And if I use URL Filtering profile and define high-risk and medium-risk action as block, it will block the category, which achieves the goal of allowing only low-risk of the website, &lt;STRONG&gt;but&lt;/STRONG&gt; ignores the requirement just whitelisting, meaning if I have a policy below that allows access to that specific website, I will not hit that policy as I am being blocked from the above. What are the recommended solutions for this kind of issue? How do you usually deal with that? Any hint is appreciated, cause I am sure there should be a way that this works but I can't see it.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Jul 2023 06:17:46 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/next-generation-firewall/allowing-only-low-risk-of-a-url-category/m-p/551001#M1582</guid>
      <dc:creator>Shams.G</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2023-07-26T06:17:46Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Allowing only low-risk of a url category</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/next-generation-firewall/allowing-only-low-risk-of-a-url-category/m-p/551096#M1584</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hello Shams.G,&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;I invite you to check the &lt;A href="https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/pancast/pancast-episode-3-url-filtering-allowing-and-blocking-the-right/ta-p/518607" target="_self"&gt;PANCast Episode 3&lt;/A&gt;, you will get some element of response in it.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Hope that helps.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Olivier&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Jul 2023 14:22:25 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/next-generation-firewall/allowing-only-low-risk-of-a-url-category/m-p/551096#M1584</guid>
      <dc:creator>ozheng</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2023-07-26T14:22:25Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Allowing only low-risk of a url category</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/next-generation-firewall/allowing-only-low-risk-of-a-url-category/m-p/551270#M1587</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Dear&amp;nbsp;&lt;A id="link_17" class="lia-link-navigation lia-page-link lia-user-name-link" href="https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/109098" target="_self" aria-label="View Profile of ozheng"&gt;&lt;SPAN class=""&gt;Ozheng&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/A&gt;,&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;thanks for yor reply and the article, however that is not what I was looking for. In practice I have set up and worked with both URL Filtering profiles and URL categories, but here I need to have not "or" but "and" logic, &lt;STRONG&gt;to allow only low-risk of training category.&lt;/STRONG&gt; Do you have any specific advice on how can I achieve that?&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Jul 2023 06:42:14 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/next-generation-firewall/allowing-only-low-risk-of-a-url-category/m-p/551270#M1587</guid>
      <dc:creator>Shams.G</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2023-07-27T06:42:14Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Allowing only low-risk of a url category</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/next-generation-firewall/allowing-only-low-risk-of-a-url-category/m-p/551402#M1596</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;From PANCast Episode 3 - Transcript.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;”&lt;SPAN&gt;When you add either a pre-defined or custom URL category to the &lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;Service/URL category&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt; in the security policy, this is the same as adding a source IP or a service port. This is used for traffic to match that security policy. So, the same as a source IP, if the traffic does not match the URL you have specified it just continues down the security policy to find a match. The key here is the URL the client is requesting is not logged if the traffic does not even match that policy.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/SPAN&gt;”&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;You put one category in match condition, you put the second category in a URL profile, you got your AND.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;Olivier&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Jul 2023 16:21:57 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/next-generation-firewall/allowing-only-low-risk-of-a-url-category/m-p/551402#M1596</guid>
      <dc:creator>ozheng</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2023-07-27T16:21:57Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

