<?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: RTP and RTCP traffic jumping rule in General Topics</title>
    <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/rtp-and-rtcp-traffic-jumping-rule/m-p/195450#M58372</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;No, Its not about 3way handshake. I thought it when this case was opened.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I was thinking that maybe some voice (RTCP) connections are differents and for that its jumping the first rule. But i can not see anythign different between them.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I will try to take pcaps to see the behaviour.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Jan 2018 08:17:03 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>soporteseguridad</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2018-01-17T08:17:03Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>RTP and RTCP traffic jumping rule</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/rtp-and-rtcp-traffic-jumping-rule/m-p/195274#M58349</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;We have created a rule for Voice IP.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Zone A to Zone B / Application RTP - RTCP / Service ANY / PERMIT&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;So all the voice RTP connections should matched in the previous rule, but we are seeing connections which should be matched the previous rule but its matching in this rule:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Zone A to Zone B / ANY / ANY / PERMIT&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Its like some connections are jumping the first rule, but we can see in log traffic how the sessions are being identified like RTP and RTCP.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Any idea?&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Jan 2018 10:53:30 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/rtp-and-rtcp-traffic-jumping-rule/m-p/195274#M58349</guid>
      <dc:creator>soporteseguridad</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-01-16T10:53:30Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: RTP and RTCP traffic jumping rule</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/rtp-and-rtcp-traffic-jumping-rule/m-p/195342#M58364</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;&lt;a href="https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/9102"&gt;@soporteseguridad&lt;/a&gt;,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Once it's been properly identified by your catch-all rule, do you see subsequent sesions between source/destination on the same port properly matching the first rule?&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Jan 2018 17:13:40 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/rtp-and-rtcp-traffic-jumping-rule/m-p/195342#M58364</guid>
      <dc:creator>BPry</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-01-16T17:13:40Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: RTP and RTCP traffic jumping rule</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/rtp-and-rtcp-traffic-jumping-rule/m-p/195450#M58372</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;No, Its not about 3way handshake. I thought it when this case was opened.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I was thinking that maybe some voice (RTCP) connections are differents and for that its jumping the first rule. But i can not see anythign different between them.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I will try to take pcaps to see the behaviour.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Jan 2018 08:17:03 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/rtp-and-rtcp-traffic-jumping-rule/m-p/195450#M58372</guid>
      <dc:creator>soporteseguridad</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-01-17T08:17:03Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: RTP and RTCP traffic jumping rule</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/rtp-and-rtcp-traffic-jumping-rule/m-p/195460#M58373</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;This&amp;nbsp;is the rule to match voice sessions. Numbers 32 and 33.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;span class="lia-inline-image-display-wrapper lia-image-align-inline" image-alt="1.jpg" style="width: 800px;"&gt;&lt;img src="https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/image/serverpage/image-id/13263i50E18ACC8F0976AC/image-size/large/is-moderation-mode/true?v=v2&amp;amp;px=999" role="button" title="1.jpg" alt="1.jpg" /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;And these two rules are below, and sometimes the RTCP&amp;nbsp; and RTP sessions are matching here. Source and destinations arent problem.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;span class="lia-inline-image-display-wrapper lia-image-align-inline" image-alt="2.jpg" style="width: 800px;"&gt;&lt;img src="https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/image/serverpage/image-id/13265i3C354168853BD990/image-size/large/is-moderation-mode/true?v=v2&amp;amp;px=999" role="button" title="2.jpg" alt="2.jpg" /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Here we can session browser. the 3 sessions should match in the third rule.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;span class="lia-inline-image-display-wrapper lia-image-align-inline" image-alt="3.jpg" style="width: 800px;"&gt;&lt;img src="https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/image/serverpage/image-id/13266iF031755DEDF2AD57/image-size/large/is-moderation-mode/true?v=v2&amp;amp;px=999" role="button" title="3.jpg" alt="3.jpg" /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Jan 2018 08:43:44 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/rtp-and-rtcp-traffic-jumping-rule/m-p/195460#M58373</guid>
      <dc:creator>soporteseguridad</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-01-17T08:43:44Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: RTP and RTCP traffic jumping rule</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/rtp-and-rtcp-traffic-jumping-rule/m-p/195565#M58397</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Recently when&amp;nbsp; locking down my voice networks I ran into an issue similarly where RTP&amp;nbsp;was matching the incorrect rule.&amp;nbsp; Come to find out that it was matching the parent session, which in my case was SCCP, that&amp;nbsp;is opening up pinholes and predicting RTP traffic and was causing it to match against a different rule than expected (my signalling rule).&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;To resolve the issue, I disabled ALG for the SCCP protocol.&amp;nbsp; I opened a case with Palo Alto who came back and had stated that this was working as expected.&amp;nbsp; I dug a little deeper reading and found out that SCCP (and others) performed ALG by default.&amp;nbsp; I had to disable ALG for SIP as well to get Cisco Telepresence to work correctly.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;-Matt&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Jan 2018 17:55:56 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/rtp-and-rtcp-traffic-jumping-rule/m-p/195565#M58397</guid>
      <dc:creator>mlinsemier</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-01-17T17:55:56Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

