<?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: Eval question in General Topics</title>
    <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/eval-question/m-p/26490#M19336</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;In the Checkpoint firewall, you'll create a port-based rule that permits outbound TCP/80, TCP/443 traffic.&amp;nbsp; Then, you'll leave the firewall policy and go to the AppBlade and create a 2nd policy that deals with applications.&amp;nbsp; It's quite the pain.&amp;nbsp; &lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Apr 2014 22:58:36 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>jvalentine</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2014-04-17T22:58:36Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Eval question</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/eval-question/m-p/26489#M19335</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P style="margin-bottom: .0001pt;"&gt;&lt;SPAN style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"&gt;Given a flow and properly written policy to allow Facebook and its myriad apps/widgets on port 80/443, other than the admin management overhead (i.e., having to open ports 80 and 443), how is what Palo Alto does different from what Checkpoint does?&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"&gt;This question addresses the quote below (found on the link shown).&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"&gt;&lt;A href="http://researchcenter.paloaltonetworks.com/2012/12/app-id-cache-pollution-response/" title="http://researchcenter.paloaltonetworks.com/2012/12/app-id-cache-pollution-response/"&gt;http://researchcenter.paloaltonetworks.com/2012/12/app-id-cache-pollution-response/&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;UL&gt;&lt;LI&gt;&lt;STRONG style="background-position: no-repeat no-repeat;"&gt;Port 80 allow – open the floodgates.&lt;/STRONG&gt; The always-on nature of port-based traffic classification, means old-guard firewalls will &lt;EM style="background-position: no-repeat no-repeat;"&gt;first&lt;/EM&gt; need to open the application default port controlling the application. To control Facebook, you need to allow tcp/80 and tcp/443. Based on the &lt;EM style="background-position: no-repeat no-repeat;"&gt;June&lt;/EM&gt; &lt;EM style="background-position: no-repeat no-repeat;"&gt;2012 Application Usage and Risk Report,&lt;/EM&gt; &lt;STRONG&gt;you may be allowing more than 500 (42%) &lt;EM style="background-position: no-repeat no-repeat;"&gt;other&lt;/EM&gt; applications that you may or may not want on the network. This means the strength of a default deny all policy is significantly weakened.&lt;/STRONG&gt; If you are using Check Point, or any other port-based firewall, ask them if the above statement is true and how they recommend managing it.&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;/UL&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"&gt;In other words, if I allow ports 80/443 in my port policy and an application policy to allow Facebook apps only, I expect Checkpoint to be able to identify Facebook and non-Facebook traffic--then allow only the Facebook traffic and discard/block the rest.&amp;nbsp; I expect Palo Alto to do the same--with the exception that the admin would not incur the management overhead of dealing with explicitly opening ports.&amp;nbsp; Can someone elaborate on how Checkpoint (or any firewall that claims NG capabilities) opens "the floodgates."? &lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"&gt;Just looking for an objective/technical answer.&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"&gt;thanks&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Apr 2014 22:28:56 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/eval-question/m-p/26489#M19335</guid>
      <dc:creator>derasa</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2014-04-17T22:28:56Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Eval question</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/eval-question/m-p/26490#M19336</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;In the Checkpoint firewall, you'll create a port-based rule that permits outbound TCP/80, TCP/443 traffic.&amp;nbsp; Then, you'll leave the firewall policy and go to the AppBlade and create a 2nd policy that deals with applications.&amp;nbsp; It's quite the pain.&amp;nbsp; &lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Apr 2014 22:58:36 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/eval-question/m-p/26490#M19336</guid>
      <dc:creator>jvalentine</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2014-04-17T22:58:36Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

