<?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 Re: Whitelist Vendor IP range from Paloalto IPS in Advanced Threat Prevention Discussions</title>
    <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/advanced-threat-prevention/whitelist-vendor-ip-range-from-paloalto-ips/m-p/307591#M731</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;If this is related to audit/compliance scanning, then you will HAVE to white-list the scanner traffic past the "IDPS" features of the Palo Alto firewall.&amp;nbsp; Additionally, just as someone else mentioned, you can not restrict to a list of "ports" that you will allow through security policy.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Jan 2020 16:11:14 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>JonZamani</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2020-01-22T16:11:14Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Whitelist Vendor IP range from Paloalto IPS</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/advanced-threat-prevention/whitelist-vendor-ip-range-from-paloalto-ips/m-p/190052#M115</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi All, I am looking for&amp;nbsp;more effective way to whitelist a vendor on IPS without whitelisting at the FW as well.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I am looking for traffic from vendore ip range to be completely exempted&amp;nbsp;from&amp;nbsp;Vulnerability / antivirus / Anti-spyware without creating any firewall rule and security profile.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Is it possible ?&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Dec 2017 10:27:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/advanced-threat-prevention/whitelist-vendor-ip-range-from-paloalto-ips/m-p/190052#M115</guid>
      <dc:creator>mnadeem</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-12-05T10:27:00Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Whitelist Vendor IP range from Paloalto IPS</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/advanced-threat-prevention/whitelist-vendor-ip-range-from-paloalto-ips/m-p/190381#M116</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hello,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Not without other potential complications, but a Policy is the best approach. Create a policy with the vendor IP's as the source and then do not perform any scanning on it.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;span class="lia-inline-image-display-wrapper lia-image-align-inline" image-alt="image.png" style="width: 693px;"&gt;&lt;img src="https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/image/serverpage/image-id/12864i8CE2D1F7D1F82ADB/image-size/large/is-moderation-mode/true?v=v2&amp;amp;px=999" role="button" title="image.png" alt="image.png" /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Its simple and effectve. It's how I allow these actions.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regards,&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Dec 2017 16:54:13 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/advanced-threat-prevention/whitelist-vendor-ip-range-from-paloalto-ips/m-p/190381#M116</guid>
      <dc:creator>OtakarKlier</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-12-06T16:54:13Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Whitelist Vendor IP range from Paloalto IPS</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/advanced-threat-prevention/whitelist-vendor-ip-range-from-paloalto-ips/m-p/287680#M641</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;We have a scheduled security scan coming up and I need to perform this step as well. However I do not want to introduce openings to the scanner that are not open to the Internet. If I were to use this method, I believe I would have to mirror each policy with the source IP of scanner and have same destination rules / ports and not do scanning. Does that sound right?&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Sep 2019 16:29:41 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/advanced-threat-prevention/whitelist-vendor-ip-range-from-paloalto-ips/m-p/287680#M641</guid>
      <dc:creator>mhowsmon</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-09-10T16:29:41Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Whitelist Vendor IP range from Paloalto IPS</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/advanced-threat-prevention/whitelist-vendor-ip-range-from-paloalto-ips/m-p/296725#M685</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I've had this same question.&amp;nbsp; Building several shadow rules to exempt an ASV from IPS only is not a road I want to start down.&amp;nbsp; Allowing a separation between IPS and Host/Port would be 100% Helpful.&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Nov 2019 15:48:41 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/advanced-threat-prevention/whitelist-vendor-ip-range-from-paloalto-ips/m-p/296725#M685</guid>
      <dc:creator>Kris.Waddle</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-11-06T15:48:41Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Whitelist Vendor IP range from Paloalto IPS</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/advanced-threat-prevention/whitelist-vendor-ip-range-from-paloalto-ips/m-p/298911#M699</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hello,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Sorry for the late response, but the answer is no, you would not need a shadow policy for every one you have. Just one before the others that has source of the vendor, destination, your IPs, and the rest allow any/any. This will only open the firewall to the vendors. We do this but internally, datacenter A scans data center B it doesnt report on every port and application because a full tcp handshake was not established.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Example:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Internet -&amp;gt; PAN -&amp;gt; webserver over ssl/443 only.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The scanner will not pick up port 80 since its not open on the server. Just make sure they disable syn only packets for a full connection.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hope that makes sense.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Nov 2019 22:20:50 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/advanced-threat-prevention/whitelist-vendor-ip-range-from-paloalto-ips/m-p/298911#M699</guid>
      <dc:creator>OtakarKlier</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-11-15T22:20:50Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Whitelist Vendor IP range from Paloalto IPS</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/advanced-threat-prevention/whitelist-vendor-ip-range-from-paloalto-ips/m-p/299134#M701</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Like that we do not need to duplicate each rule!&amp;nbsp; But not sure about the recommended solution:&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;DIV class="lia-message-body lia-component-message-view-widget-body lia-component-body-signature-highlight-escalation lia-component-message-view-widget-body-signature-highlight-escalation"&gt;&lt;DIV class="lia-message-body-content"&gt;&lt;P&gt;Allowing any/any from the source IP will fully open the network to that IP, when we only want to allow them Vulnerability/Compliance Scanning.&amp;nbsp; Isn't there a tighter/cleaner solution, or am I misunderstanding your suggestion?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks!&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/DIV&gt;&lt;/DIV&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Nov 2019 16:30:23 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/advanced-threat-prevention/whitelist-vendor-ip-range-from-paloalto-ips/m-p/299134#M701</guid>
      <dc:creator>Jamshid</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-11-18T16:30:23Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Whitelist Vendor IP range from Paloalto IPS</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/advanced-threat-prevention/whitelist-vendor-ip-range-from-paloalto-ips/m-p/299151#M702</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hello,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;If I'm understanding your question correctly, the end result is to allow an external vendor to scan your external perimeter without the PAN blocking it.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;If that is the end result, this is the cleanest way I know how with one policy. There could be others out there that have done other things.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regards,&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Nov 2019 16:47:23 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/advanced-threat-prevention/whitelist-vendor-ip-range-from-paloalto-ips/m-p/299151#M702</guid>
      <dc:creator>OtakarKlier</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-11-18T16:47:23Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Whitelist Vendor IP range from Paloalto IPS</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/advanced-threat-prevention/whitelist-vendor-ip-range-from-paloalto-ips/m-p/299154#M703</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I want the scanner to be able to scan without being blocked but I want them to only see the ports that are exposed to the Internet, not "any/any". That is why I went with shadowing of each rule.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Nov 2019 16:57:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/advanced-threat-prevention/whitelist-vendor-ip-range-from-paloalto-ips/m-p/299154#M703</guid>
      <dc:creator>mhowsmon</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-11-18T16:57:00Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Whitelist Vendor IP range from Paloalto IPS</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/advanced-threat-prevention/whitelist-vendor-ip-range-from-paloalto-ips/m-p/299163#M704</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Thanks for your quick reply!&amp;nbsp; This allows full scan, but not validation of existing rules.&amp;nbsp; Duplication of each and every rule would be a nightmare, as we have 10 pairs of firewalls, and many hundreds of rules between them.&amp;nbsp; Ideal solution would be a single Panorama pre-rule to disable IPS for one single IP, from which the&amp;nbsp;Vulnerability/Compliance Scanning would take place. Is that possible?&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Nov 2019 18:16:31 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/advanced-threat-prevention/whitelist-vendor-ip-range-from-paloalto-ips/m-p/299163#M704</guid>
      <dc:creator>Jamshid</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-11-18T18:16:31Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Whitelist Vendor IP range from Paloalto IPS</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/advanced-threat-prevention/whitelist-vendor-ip-range-from-paloalto-ips/m-p/299201#M705</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hello,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Yes this does validate existing policies. If its say ssl, the vendor will try ssl over port 443 and if its allowed the vendor will show it as open.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regards,&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Nov 2019 20:13:29 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/advanced-threat-prevention/whitelist-vendor-ip-range-from-paloalto-ips/m-p/299201#M705</guid>
      <dc:creator>OtakarKlier</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-11-18T20:13:29Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Whitelist Vendor IP range from Paloalto IPS</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/advanced-threat-prevention/whitelist-vendor-ip-range-from-paloalto-ips/m-p/303751#M709</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;We also have allowed Vendor to Scan from outside to Internal by allowing the Vendor IP and destination as our Public IP on specific &amp;nbsp;ports.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;What we did was for vulnerable profile set to none.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;All was good then.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 14 Dec 2019 16:29:35 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/advanced-threat-prevention/whitelist-vendor-ip-range-from-paloalto-ips/m-p/303751#M709</guid>
      <dc:creator>MP18</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-12-14T16:29:35Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Whitelist Vendor IP range from Paloalto IPS</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/advanced-threat-prevention/whitelist-vendor-ip-range-from-paloalto-ips/m-p/303934#M713</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;This may depend on the ASV that has been engaged, but building a rule to allow or deny based on port has been not allowed by our Auditors as an explicit allow for a port would an implicit deny for the non included ports.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 16 Dec 2019 17:38:49 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/advanced-threat-prevention/whitelist-vendor-ip-range-from-paloalto-ips/m-p/303934#M713</guid>
      <dc:creator>Kris.Waddle</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-12-16T17:38:49Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Whitelist Vendor IP range from Paloalto IPS</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/advanced-threat-prevention/whitelist-vendor-ip-range-from-paloalto-ips/m-p/307591#M731</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;If this is related to audit/compliance scanning, then you will HAVE to white-list the scanner traffic past the "IDPS" features of the Palo Alto firewall.&amp;nbsp; Additionally, just as someone else mentioned, you can not restrict to a list of "ports" that you will allow through security policy.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Jan 2020 16:11:14 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/advanced-threat-prevention/whitelist-vendor-ip-range-from-paloalto-ips/m-p/307591#M731</guid>
      <dc:creator>JonZamani</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-01-22T16:11:14Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

