<?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 Anti-virus and &amp;quot;Server response inspection&amp;quot; in General Topics</title>
    <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/anti-virus-and-quot-server-response-inspection-quot/m-p/26066#M19020</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;I have been disabling "server response inspection" by default in all my policies as it is documented in a number of places (including independent group tests) that this improves the overall firewall performance, and I was under the impression that SRI was only useful in certain data-centre environments that do not apply to us.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;However while testing some policies today I notice that with SRI disabled anti-virus does &lt;STRONG&gt;not &lt;/STRONG&gt;work (testing with .&amp;nbsp; I suppose logically this makes sense, the virus is going to be in the server response, but I cannot find this documented anywhere - is this expected behaviour?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Liam.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Feb 2012 12:58:30 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>LCMember2860</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2012-02-28T12:58:30Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Anti-virus and "Server response inspection"</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/anti-virus-and-quot-server-response-inspection-quot/m-p/26066#M19020</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;I have been disabling "server response inspection" by default in all my policies as it is documented in a number of places (including independent group tests) that this improves the overall firewall performance, and I was under the impression that SRI was only useful in certain data-centre environments that do not apply to us.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;However while testing some policies today I notice that with SRI disabled anti-virus does &lt;STRONG&gt;not &lt;/STRONG&gt;work (testing with .&amp;nbsp; I suppose logically this makes sense, the virus is going to be in the server response, but I cannot find this documented anywhere - is this expected behaviour?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Liam.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Feb 2012 12:58:30 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/anti-virus-and-quot-server-response-inspection-quot/m-p/26066#M19020</guid>
      <dc:creator>LCMember2860</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2012-02-28T12:58:30Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Anti-virus and "Server response inspection"</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/anti-virus-and-quot-server-response-inspection-quot/m-p/26067#M19021</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;From the Admin Guide:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;PRE __jive_macro_name="quote" class="jive_text_macro jive_macro_quote"&gt;&lt;P&gt;Disable Server Response Inspection—To disable packet inspection from the server to the client, select this check box. This option may be useful under heavy server load conditions.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/PRE&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I believe this is quite clear. I would not recommend to disable SRI by default.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;rgds Roland&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Feb 2012 13:13:30 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/anti-virus-and-quot-server-response-inspection-quot/m-p/26067#M19021</guid>
      <dc:creator>gafrol</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2012-02-28T13:13:30Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

