<?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: ROBOT attack - some advice needed in General Topics</title>
    <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/robot-attack-some-advice-needed/m-p/193664#M58030</link>
    <description>As best practice I'd recommend moving the GP interface (and any other 'service' including mgmt etc) to a retracted interface like a loopback so any packets need to pass through the dataplane before even touching the service</description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 Jan 2018 19:09:46 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>reaper</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2018-01-03T19:09:46Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>ROBOT attack - some advice needed</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/robot-attack-some-advice-needed/m-p/193575#M58014</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hello&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;According to &lt;A href="https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/Threat-Vulnerability-Articles/PAN-OS-exposure-to-ROBOT-attack/ta-p/192397" target="_self"&gt;https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/Threat-Vulnerability-Articles/PAN-OS-exposure-to-ROBOT-attack/ta-p/192397&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;For complete protection, signature&amp;nbsp;#38407 must be applied &lt;EM&gt;upstream&lt;/EM&gt; from any interfaces implementing SSL Decryption, or hosting a GlobalProtect portal or a GlobalProtect gateway.&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;I have 760 content update applied. I tryed to scan ma GP interface using &lt;A href="https://robotattack.org/" target="_self"&gt;https://robotattack.org/&lt;/A&gt; scanner and of course I'm voulnereable because I'm using PANOS 8.0.6h3 but in threat logs I see nothing related to ROBOT or 38407&amp;nbsp; attack.&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;What security policy I should have to protect before this attact? I'm not using SSL decryption.&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;Regards&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;SLawek&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Jan 2018 09:13:45 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/robot-attack-some-advice-needed/m-p/193575#M58014</guid>
      <dc:creator>_slv_</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-01-03T09:13:45Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: ROBOT attack - some advice needed</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/robot-attack-some-advice-needed/m-p/193656#M58024</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;What security policy permits traffic from Untrust to your GP Portal/Gateway?&amp;nbsp; Do you have an explicit policy defined, or are you relying on the default/implicit intra-zone permit policy (which defaults to no logging)?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;You can either create an explicit policy before the intra-zone policy that permits untrust to untrust/gp portal+gateway, with vulnerability signatures &amp;amp; logging enabled... or you can modify(override) the default intra-zone policy and make your changes on the action tab.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Jan 2018 17:55:12 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/robot-attack-some-advice-needed/m-p/193656#M58024</guid>
      <dc:creator>jvalentine</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-01-03T17:55:12Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: ROBOT attack - some advice needed</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/robot-attack-some-advice-needed/m-p/193662#M58028</link>
      <description>I'll have to disagree with &lt;a href="https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/22017"&gt;@jvalentine&lt;/a&gt; on this one:&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;The service, if running on the external interface, will already be vulnerable before the intrazone policy is able to protect it&lt;BR /&gt;Ideally you should either block the vulnerability upstream (this can be accomplished by gearing a vwire in front of the untrust interface,), or you can host the GP service on a loopback interface (this loopback can also be in the untrust zone, but because the packets need to "jump" interfaces, they can efficiently be blocked by a security profile)</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Jan 2018 18:20:52 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/robot-attack-some-advice-needed/m-p/193662#M58028</guid>
      <dc:creator>reaper</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-01-03T18:20:52Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: ROBOT attack - some advice needed</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/robot-attack-some-advice-needed/m-p/193663#M58029</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;&lt;a href="https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/7608"&gt;@reaper&lt;/a&gt;Yes You are right. I'm using&amp;nbsp; external interface in GP configuration.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I checked KB and I found &lt;A href="https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/Configuration-Articles/How-to-Configure-Global-Protect-Gateway-on-Loopback-Interface/ta-p/56866" target="_self"&gt;link&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Do You have better doc for it?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;as we know ... in the future for sure will be another volnureability so the best option will be properly configure GP to use ThreatPrevention to protect it.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regards&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Slawek&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Jan 2018 18:48:06 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/robot-attack-some-advice-needed/m-p/193663#M58029</guid>
      <dc:creator>_slv_</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-01-03T18:48:06Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: ROBOT attack - some advice needed</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/robot-attack-some-advice-needed/m-p/193664#M58030</link>
      <description>As best practice I'd recommend moving the GP interface (and any other 'service' including mgmt etc) to a retracted interface like a loopback so any packets need to pass through the dataplane before even touching the service</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Jan 2018 19:09:46 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/robot-attack-some-advice-needed/m-p/193664#M58030</guid>
      <dc:creator>reaper</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-01-03T19:09:46Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: ROBOT attack - some advice needed</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/robot-attack-some-advice-needed/m-p/193743#M58055</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;&lt;a href="https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/7608"&gt;@reaper&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;thanks for the clarification... "upstream" getting the most emphasis.&amp;nbsp; Also good to know the added benefit of running on loopbacks vs interfaces.&amp;nbsp; Have to tuck that away for future reference.&amp;nbsp; Thanks!&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Jan 2018 22:26:21 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/robot-attack-some-advice-needed/m-p/193743#M58055</guid>
      <dc:creator>jvalentine</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-01-03T22:26:21Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

