<?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 Best way to update app and content without impacting traffic...? in General Topics</title>
    <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/best-way-to-update-app-and-content-without-impacting-traffic/m-p/44508#M32668</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hello All,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I am posing this as a question to the community, but in the latest release of app/content updates for PA, a new more focused signature was released.&amp;nbsp; The new more focused signature was ms-wmi, and it was previously identified as msrpc.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;So....What's the problem?&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; The problem is that if I update content, I will essentially be blocking any ms-wmi that was previously identified as msrpc, because it was allowed under that previous signatures.&amp;nbsp; This means that when&amp;nbsp; I perform this update, I will be blocking ms-wmi traffic for some period of time [ how long does it take me to push policy, or craft new policy based on the new app signature of ms-wmi? ].&amp;nbsp; It seems troubling to me that this is the case, and there is no way around it.&amp;nbsp; Has anyone else experienced this?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The only scenarios that I can think of to minimize the impact on the new app signatures are as follows [ in both scenarios,&amp;nbsp; I am utilizing panorama ]:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Scenario 1&amp;nbsp; [ Panorama with HA pair ]:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;1.&amp;nbsp; Update content in Panorama to the latest release&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;2.&amp;nbsp; In Panorama update all rules that currently have msrpc to allow ms-wmi as well.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;3.&amp;nbsp; Update the content/app-ids on the passive firewall.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;4.&amp;nbsp; Push new policy from panorama to the passive firewall.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;5.&amp;nbsp; Fail over to the passive firewall [ In theory this has policy which already allows the new more focused signature, so it should not disrupt current traffic or new connections ]&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;6.&amp;nbsp; Update the content/app-ids on the firewall that is now in a passive state.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;7.&amp;nbsp; Push updated panorama config to the now passive firewall&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;8.&amp;nbsp; Fail back to the originally active firewall.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Scenario 2&amp;nbsp; [ Just deal with the outage time ]:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;1.&amp;nbsp; Update content in panorama.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;2.&amp;nbsp; Add ms-wmi to all rules that are currently allowing msrpc.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;3.&amp;nbsp; Update content on the firewalls.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;4.&amp;nbsp; Quickly push policy from panorama as soon as the app/content update has succeeded. [ the ms-wmi traffic will be blocked during the period of time that the new policy is being pushed after the content update has succeeded. ]&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Anyone have experience with this ?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 1.5em;"&gt; &lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 Mar 2013 17:46:08 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>btwright</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2013-03-05T17:46:08Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Best way to update app and content without impacting traffic...?</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/best-way-to-update-app-and-content-without-impacting-traffic/m-p/44508#M32668</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hello All,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I am posing this as a question to the community, but in the latest release of app/content updates for PA, a new more focused signature was released.&amp;nbsp; The new more focused signature was ms-wmi, and it was previously identified as msrpc.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;So....What's the problem?&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; The problem is that if I update content, I will essentially be blocking any ms-wmi that was previously identified as msrpc, because it was allowed under that previous signatures.&amp;nbsp; This means that when&amp;nbsp; I perform this update, I will be blocking ms-wmi traffic for some period of time [ how long does it take me to push policy, or craft new policy based on the new app signature of ms-wmi? ].&amp;nbsp; It seems troubling to me that this is the case, and there is no way around it.&amp;nbsp; Has anyone else experienced this?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The only scenarios that I can think of to minimize the impact on the new app signatures are as follows [ in both scenarios,&amp;nbsp; I am utilizing panorama ]:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Scenario 1&amp;nbsp; [ Panorama with HA pair ]:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;1.&amp;nbsp; Update content in Panorama to the latest release&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;2.&amp;nbsp; In Panorama update all rules that currently have msrpc to allow ms-wmi as well.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;3.&amp;nbsp; Update the content/app-ids on the passive firewall.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;4.&amp;nbsp; Push new policy from panorama to the passive firewall.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;5.&amp;nbsp; Fail over to the passive firewall [ In theory this has policy which already allows the new more focused signature, so it should not disrupt current traffic or new connections ]&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;6.&amp;nbsp; Update the content/app-ids on the firewall that is now in a passive state.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;7.&amp;nbsp; Push updated panorama config to the now passive firewall&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;8.&amp;nbsp; Fail back to the originally active firewall.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Scenario 2&amp;nbsp; [ Just deal with the outage time ]:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;1.&amp;nbsp; Update content in panorama.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;2.&amp;nbsp; Add ms-wmi to all rules that are currently allowing msrpc.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;3.&amp;nbsp; Update content on the firewalls.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;4.&amp;nbsp; Quickly push policy from panorama as soon as the app/content update has succeeded. [ the ms-wmi traffic will be blocked during the period of time that the new policy is being pushed after the content update has succeeded. ]&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Anyone have experience with this ?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 1.5em;"&gt; &lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Mar 2013 17:46:08 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/best-way-to-update-app-and-content-without-impacting-traffic/m-p/44508#M32668</guid>
      <dc:creator>btwright</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2013-03-05T17:46:08Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Best way to update app and content without impacting traffic...?</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/best-way-to-update-app-and-content-without-impacting-traffic/m-p/44509#M32669</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;If you properly identify (or re-categorize) your applications to include the updated signatures, I do not think you will much of an outage.&amp;nbsp; On a PA-500 device, it takes about 2 minutes to push a policy down to the FW. With a faster FW, the commit process could be faster. However, in my testing with pushing down any type of policy, that it "takes effect" somewhere around the 75% mark of the commit.&amp;nbsp; So in terms of outage.. that would be 30 secs or less.&amp;nbsp; Not really an outage, more of a hiccup. Just my thoughts on this.&amp;nbsp; Unless I misunderstood what you were trying to explain to me.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Mar 2013 19:22:43 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/best-way-to-update-app-and-content-without-impacting-traffic/m-p/44509#M32669</guid>
      <dc:creator>scantwell</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2013-03-29T19:22:43Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

