<?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 Vulnerability alerts in Advanced Threat Prevention Discussions</title>
    <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/advanced-threat-prevention/vulnerability-alerts/m-p/182315#M78</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;How does the palo detects a vuln based on traffic? Is it is advisable to enable it on all the traffic? I am seeing lot of false positive in the logs when I enabled it.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Oct 2017 12:28:50 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>SThatipelly</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2017-10-17T12:28:50Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Vulnerability alerts</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/advanced-threat-prevention/vulnerability-alerts/m-p/182315#M78</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;How does the palo detects a vuln based on traffic? Is it is advisable to enable it on all the traffic? I am seeing lot of false positive in the logs when I enabled it.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Oct 2017 12:28:50 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/advanced-threat-prevention/vulnerability-alerts/m-p/182315#M78</guid>
      <dc:creator>SThatipelly</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-10-17T12:28:50Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Vulnerability alerts</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/advanced-threat-prevention/vulnerability-alerts/m-p/183515#M87</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;When traffic is allowed by a Security Policy and there is a Vulnerability Protection Profile defined to the Security Policy, the firewall checks the traffic for vulnerabilities specified in the&amp;nbsp;&lt;SPAN&gt;Vulnerability Protection Profile.&amp;nbsp; If the traffic matches a vulnerability signature, an action is taken place.&amp;nbsp; The more Security Policies you have&amp;nbsp;Vulnerability Protection Profiles defined with, the better you are protected.&amp;nbsp; However, it may create some false positives.&amp;nbsp; In that case you may want to adjust the "action" to the "severity" that you are comfortable with in the Vulnerability Protection Profiles.&amp;nbsp; For us, we "reset-both" action for critical, high, and medium severities, "default" action for low severity, and "allow" action for informational severity.&amp;nbsp; Finally, there are a few Threat IDs we have made individual "exceptions" to within the&amp;nbsp;Vulnerability Protection Profile.&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;I would say your Security Policies that pass traffic TO/FROM the Untrust zone would likely have the most risk and is where you definitely want to have&amp;nbsp;Vulnerability Protection Profiles enabled.&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;I hope this helps!&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Oct 2017 20:11:29 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/advanced-threat-prevention/vulnerability-alerts/m-p/183515#M87</guid>
      <dc:creator>CTW1983</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-10-24T20:11:29Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

