<?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 Seperate policy for IPSec VPN and SSL VPN? in General Topics</title>
    <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/seperate-policy-for-ipsec-vpn-and-ssl-vpn/m-p/4624#M3393</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;So I would like to have different policies based upon what device a user comes in from. If they use Globalprotect with HIP checking, they are given a less restrictive policy. Where as if they come from an iphone with ipsec, they are given a more restrictive policy. Both ipsec and SSL are hitting the same GP gateway. I see no way to differentiate the sessions other then creating a new gateway for logical segmentation and only alow SSL on one GW and only allow IPSec on the other. I would like to maintain the single gateway if possible. Anyone have any suggestions?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Jan 2012 02:54:53 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>BrutalDismount</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2012-01-11T02:54:53Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Seperate policy for IPSec VPN and SSL VPN?</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/seperate-policy-for-ipsec-vpn-and-ssl-vpn/m-p/4624#M3393</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;So I would like to have different policies based upon what device a user comes in from. If they use Globalprotect with HIP checking, they are given a less restrictive policy. Where as if they come from an iphone with ipsec, they are given a more restrictive policy. Both ipsec and SSL are hitting the same GP gateway. I see no way to differentiate the sessions other then creating a new gateway for logical segmentation and only alow SSL on one GW and only allow IPSec on the other. I would like to maintain the single gateway if possible. Anyone have any suggestions?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Jan 2012 02:54:53 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/seperate-policy-for-ipsec-vpn-and-ssl-vpn/m-p/4624#M3393</guid>
      <dc:creator>BrutalDismount</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2012-01-11T02:54:53Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Seperate policy for IPSec VPN and SSL VPN?</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/seperate-policy-for-ipsec-vpn-and-ssl-vpn/m-p/4625#M3394</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Setting up a new VSYS should do this as you already explained (one who only accepts IPSEC the other only accepts SSL).&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Otherwise, cant you in the hipsprofile define which device the client is using?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Or cannot one use different zones, one zone for ipsecclients and one for sslclients?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Another method would be if you place the hardware devices in different AD-groups and by that create policies (only allow AD_IPSEC and not AD_SSL and the other way around per security policy).&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Jan 2012 07:39:02 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/seperate-policy-for-ipsec-vpn-and-ssl-vpn/m-p/4625#M3394</guid>
      <dc:creator>mikand</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2012-01-11T07:39:02Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Seperate policy for IPSec VPN and SSL VPN?</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/seperate-policy-for-ipsec-vpn-and-ssl-vpn/m-p/4626#M3395</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi there,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Can't this be done just the way you describe with a normal Security Policy?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;UL&gt;&lt;LI&gt;One policy rule checks for HIP state... if a client matches then this rule allows less restricted access&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;A following policy rule only allows more restricted access.&amp;nbsp; All other users/devices that did not send HIP information will match this more restrictive rule.&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;/UL&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Cheers,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Kelly&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Jan 2012 08:53:38 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/seperate-policy-for-ipsec-vpn-and-ssl-vpn/m-p/4626#M3395</guid>
      <dc:creator>kbrazil</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2012-01-11T08:53:38Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Seperate policy for IPSec VPN and SSL VPN?</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/seperate-policy-for-ipsec-vpn-and-ssl-vpn/m-p/4627#M3396</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Dunno if that might work... keep in mind that PA is like most firewalls top-down first-match (only ACL's which doesnt do that, which I have found so far, is the ipf/pf from *BSD and the ACL engine in Allied Telesyn equipment (I think AT changed into Cisco-style in their latest hardware releases but there are still a few AT devices which isnt the latest models still out there).&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;But sure if your SSL clients wont hit the rule containing hipprofile then they will hopefully hit the following rule without the hipprofile.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The problem here is what to do with your IPSEC clients (iphones etc) that should hit the hipprofile but for some reason fails the hip control?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Jan 2012 10:03:55 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/seperate-policy-for-ipsec-vpn-and-ssl-vpn/m-p/4627#M3396</guid>
      <dc:creator>mikand</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2012-01-11T10:03:55Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Seperate policy for IPSec VPN and SSL VPN?</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/seperate-policy-for-ipsec-vpn-and-ssl-vpn/m-p/4628#M3397</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;The Iphones will never hit the HIP rule since there is no native Global Protect client for them today.&amp;nbsp; They will automatically get the more restrictive rule that does not contain the HIP match criteria.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Cheers,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Kelly&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Jan 2012 10:34:22 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/seperate-policy-for-ipsec-vpn-and-ssl-vpn/m-p/4628#M3397</guid>
      <dc:creator>kbrazil</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2012-01-11T10:34:22Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Seperate policy for IPSec VPN and SSL VPN?</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/seperate-policy-for-ipsec-vpn-and-ssl-vpn/m-p/4629#M3398</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Indeed that is the problem. How do you differentiate the GP SSL client that fails HIP check, with the IPSec client? From what I know, there is no way for an IPSec client to pass a HIP check or policy match rule.&amp;nbsp; &lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Jan 2012 12:35:03 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/seperate-policy-for-ipsec-vpn-and-ssl-vpn/m-p/4629#M3398</guid>
      <dc:creator>BrutalDismount</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2012-01-11T12:35:03Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Seperate policy for IPSec VPN and SSL VPN?</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/seperate-policy-for-ipsec-vpn-and-ssl-vpn/m-p/4630#M3399</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Can you use 2 different Loopback interfaces and IP addresses and create 2 zones (IPSEC and SSL) then differentiate rules based on zones?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Steve Krall&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Jan 2012 20:42:58 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/seperate-policy-for-ipsec-vpn-and-ssl-vpn/m-p/4630#M3399</guid>
      <dc:creator>skrall</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2012-01-20T20:42:58Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Seperate policy for IPSec VPN and SSL VPN?</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/seperate-policy-for-ipsec-vpn-and-ssl-vpn/m-p/4631#M3400</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Works great as skrall mentioned. Create another GP interface for the Windows/MAC based GP clients. If you have spare public IP's add them as /32 loopback interfaces and use them in the second GP config.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 15 Sep 2012 18:24:08 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/seperate-policy-for-ipsec-vpn-and-ssl-vpn/m-p/4631#M3400</guid>
      <dc:creator>Quinton</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2012-09-15T18:24:08Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

