<?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: Rudimentary TCP Session and Monitor Question in General Topics</title>
    <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/rudimentary-tcp-session-and-monitor-question/m-p/68975#M40116</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Yep. &amp;nbsp;This is it. &amp;nbsp;It will not log it to the monitor but will acrrue counters against&amp;nbsp;the global TCP counters. &amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Thanks all!&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Dec 2015 17:59:08 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>mrcs</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2015-12-03T17:59:08Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Rudimentary TCP Session and Monitor Question</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/rudimentary-tcp-session-and-monitor-question/m-p/68963#M40107</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I feel like I should already know this, but I just need a sanity check.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;I have a rule that allows host A to B via tcp/900. &amp;nbsp;So host A starts to communicate via host B via that port. &amp;nbsp;The firewall allows it and a session is created. &amp;nbsp;Now, assume A and B stop talking but don't formally close the session. &amp;nbsp;After the default timer, the PAN closes that session. &amp;nbsp;Now, A tries to communicate to B b/c it still thinks it has an active session. &amp;nbsp;When that traffic hits the firewall, should it show up in the monitor log as a "deny"? &amp;nbsp;Will it just silently drop the packet? &amp;nbsp;Will it try to start a new session and I'd see a new "start" in the monitor?&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Dec 2015 15:27:54 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/rudimentary-tcp-session-and-monitor-question/m-p/68963#M40107</guid>
      <dc:creator>mrcs</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2015-12-03T15:27:54Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Rudimentary TCP Session and Monitor Question</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/rudimentary-tcp-session-and-monitor-question/m-p/68964#M40108</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;B probably take this new session as new.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Firewall sees this as new if this has expired in firewa..&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Source port is usually diferent for diferent sessions even if destination port is 900 in both cases.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Also new session starts with new SYN so B should take it as new.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Dec 2015 15:48:31 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/rudimentary-tcp-session-and-monitor-question/m-p/68964#M40108</guid>
      <dc:creator>Raido_Rattameister</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2015-12-03T15:48:31Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Rudimentary TCP Session and Monitor Question</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/rudimentary-tcp-session-and-monitor-question/m-p/68969#M40113</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi,&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;The firewall will silently drop the packets, unless you entered the command "set session tcp-reject-non-syn no" in the CLI. Eventually, the OS of the client will notice that there are no ACKs and will close or reset the connection. Apparently, it can takes a couple minutes for that to happen. If it's a problem for you, you can change the timer for specific applications (or system-wide, but I wouldn't do that). You could also make sure the client application sends packets from time to time to keep the session alive.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Regards,&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Benjamin&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Dec 2015 16:13:25 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/rudimentary-tcp-session-and-monitor-question/m-p/68969#M40113</guid>
      <dc:creator>BenjAudy.MTL</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2015-12-03T16:13:25Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Rudimentary TCP Session and Monitor Question</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/rudimentary-tcp-session-and-monitor-question/m-p/68971#M40114</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Right.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;I missed the part that A still thinks that session is active.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;In this case yes fw will drop those packets.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Dec 2015 16:44:08 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/rudimentary-tcp-session-and-monitor-question/m-p/68971#M40114</guid>
      <dc:creator>Raido_Rattameister</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2015-12-03T16:44:08Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Rudimentary TCP Session and Monitor Question</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/rudimentary-tcp-session-and-monitor-question/m-p/68975#M40116</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Yep. &amp;nbsp;This is it. &amp;nbsp;It will not log it to the monitor but will acrrue counters against&amp;nbsp;the global TCP counters. &amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Thanks all!&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Dec 2015 17:59:08 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/rudimentary-tcp-session-and-monitor-question/m-p/68975#M40116</guid>
      <dc:creator>mrcs</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2015-12-03T17:59:08Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

