topic Re: Searching for Protocol Categories? general-internet > file-sharing in General Topics

Searching for Protocol Categories? general-internet > file-sharing

choff123 — Tue, 05 Mar 2013 17:42:28 GMT

Is Palo Alto able to search for an entire protocol group?

for example i can search for bittorrent, emule, etc... BUT can I search for any protocol that falls under the file sharing group?

networking > encrypted-tunnel

networking > remote-access

networking > proxy

etc....

Re: Searching for Protocol Categories? general-internet > file-sharing

Abs — Tue, 05 Mar 2013 19:30:21 GMT

Hi Chuff,

The way to do that is exactly as you'd expect. Under Objects > Applications, filter both for general internet and file sharing. Then search for an application called 2ch, which does not fall under this filter. It will not appear. Deselect the filters and search again, and you'll find the application again.If you're looking to search for everything under the networking filter, then just select the networking filter.

(Now shamelessly accepting the next 69 friend requests.)

Re: Searching for Protocol Categories? general-internet > file-sharing

choff123 — Tue, 05 Mar 2013 23:13:16 GMT

Thanks, but I guess I should have been more clear.

Can I search for protocol groups in Monitor > Traffic ?

I would like to search for all traffic that uses a 'file-sharing' protocol without having to list every protocol in the searchbox

eg:

( app eq bittorrent ) or ( app eq emule ) or ( app eq xxx ) or ( app eq xxx ) or ( app eq xxx ) etc etc

Re: Searching for Protocol Categories? general-internet > file-sharing

Abs — Tue, 05 Mar 2013 23:28:47 GMT

Not under the monitor tab, but under the ACC you can click the drop down for the Applications box (1st one) and select based on Applications, High Risk Applications, Categories, Sub Categories, Technology, and Risk.

(Now shamelessly accepting the next 68 friend requests.)

Re: Searching for Protocol Categories? general-internet > file-sharing

choff123 — Tue, 05 Mar 2013 23:57:23 GMT

thanks, i think that will work a bit better than what i had in mind.

cheers