<?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: Port Scan Options in General Topics</title>
    <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/port-scan-options/m-p/169654#M53880</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;I think we determined we'd use a client config file that specifies a port unstead of letting it do the port scan. &amp;nbsp;It seems like a lazy way to program a client application, especially when there are only ten or so ports it could use, why shouldn't the server just listen on all of them and the client be a little more subtle about checking them instead of blasting them all at once?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I'm going to go ahead and reach out to my account rep and ask about the destination exclusion as a possible feature request.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 02 Aug 2017 19:13:23 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>jsalmans</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2017-08-02T19:13:23Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Port Scan Options</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/port-scan-options/m-p/169310#M53812</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi all,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Looking for some feedback from anyone else who has run into this issue before.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Basically we have zone protection set up for our Wifi and ResNet security zones. &amp;nbsp;Included in this zone protection is a block-ip rule for port scanning. &amp;nbsp;We've received a request to allow client devices on these networks to reach a server using a specific piece of software and that software, by default, does a port scan... I'm guessing to identify which ports the server is set up to use. &amp;nbsp;My security logs show the traffic is allowed but with tcp-rst-from-server on the attempts. &amp;nbsp;If I go and look at the threat logs on the firewalls (instead of Panorama) I'm seeing block-ip happening due to the port scan.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Is there a way around this that anyone has come up with besides disabling port scan protection? &amp;nbsp;The simplest thing to do would be to put in an exception for that specific destination IP but it looks like exceptions are currently source IP based only. &amp;nbsp;I would not know the source IP addresses for these clients since it is DHCP and we wouldn't be doing reservations for them.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks!&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Aug 2017 15:37:55 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/port-scan-options/m-p/169310#M53812</guid>
      <dc:creator>jsalmans</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-08-01T15:37:55Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Port Scan Options</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/port-scan-options/m-p/169397#M53824</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;&lt;a href="https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/39461"&gt;@jsalmans&lt;/a&gt;,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Currently I don't know of a way to make an exclusion by the destination IP address if it's triggering on a zone protection policy. It might be a case for a feature request unless anyone else has some magic to toss at the idea?&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Aug 2017 20:08:37 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/port-scan-options/m-p/169397#M53824</guid>
      <dc:creator>BPry</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-08-01T20:08:37Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Port Scan Options</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/port-scan-options/m-p/169421#M53830</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I agree, there is not an option without disabling the zone protection that I can think of. I also would like a solution since my scanners get blocked and it takes a long time to scan certian zones.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Aug 2017 22:47:04 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/port-scan-options/m-p/169421#M53830</guid>
      <dc:creator>OtakarKlier</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-08-01T22:47:04Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Port Scan Options</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/port-scan-options/m-p/169453#M53840</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;&lt;a href="https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/27580"&gt;@OtakarKlier&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;the scanners you mention, if they're on static IP addresses or have DHCP resverations you could add them to an exception list in the zone protection profile.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Sadly that isn't an option for me. &amp;nbsp;I think having a destination exception list would be very handy if it is possible.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 02 Aug 2017 03:20:45 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/port-scan-options/m-p/169453#M53840</guid>
      <dc:creator>jsalmans</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-08-02T03:20:45Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Port Scan Options</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/port-scan-options/m-p/169654#M53880</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I think we determined we'd use a client config file that specifies a port unstead of letting it do the port scan. &amp;nbsp;It seems like a lazy way to program a client application, especially when there are only ten or so ports it could use, why shouldn't the server just listen on all of them and the client be a little more subtle about checking them instead of blasting them all at once?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I'm going to go ahead and reach out to my account rep and ask about the destination exclusion as a possible feature request.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 02 Aug 2017 19:13:23 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/port-scan-options/m-p/169654#M53880</guid>
      <dc:creator>jsalmans</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-08-02T19:13:23Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Port Scan Options</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/port-scan-options/m-p/169878#M53930</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;... i would really love to hear / read the conversation the developpers had when they decided how to solve the problem of the unknown destination port :D:D:D&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;... and if they also discussed about scanning the whole IP space in order to find the server when the user does not know it ...&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Aug 2017 16:44:02 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/port-scan-options/m-p/169878#M53930</guid>
      <dc:creator>Remo</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-08-03T16:44:02Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Port Scan Options</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/port-scan-options/m-p/169907#M53939</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Haha right? &amp;nbsp;It reminds me of one of my favorite quotes from the movie Aliens:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;"We'll nuke it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure"&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;How do we know what port to use? &amp;nbsp;We'll just try them all, at once, two or three times.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Aug 2017 18:08:08 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/port-scan-options/m-p/169907#M53939</guid>
      <dc:creator>jsalmans</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-08-03T18:08:08Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

