Today I had 2 cases opened for the same problem 179616 and179728

Reply
Not applicable

Today I had 2 cases opened for the same problem 179616 and179728

I would like to have further discussion on this it  seems that we now have a very broad policy at the top of our blocking list which contradicts the first rule of firewalls.

Highlighted
L4 Transporter

Re: Today I had 2 cases opened for the same problem 179616 and179728

Larry on the discussion board "us users" have no idea what is in the contents of the two tickets you have open... would you care to describe the tickets you have open? Otherwise the community of PA users can't really be of any help honestly...

L3 Networker

Re: Today I had 2 cases opened for the same problem 179616 and179728

Hi Larry, I've taken a look at the cases in question. It appears that the traffic was being blocked because there was no policy in place to allow this traffic. The reason the engineers added 'any' to the application list on the policy is so that you can identify which applications you need to allow. You will see the type of traffic (which applications) are hitting this policy in the traffic log. Once you identify and decide which applications you want to allow you can then update the policy at the top to allow only those applications rather than 'any'. Anything else will hit the deny rule.

Like what you see?

Show your appreciation!

Click Like if a post is helpful to you or if you just want to show your support.

Click Accept as Solution to acknowledge that the answer to your question has been provided.

The button appears next to the replies on topics you’ve started. The member who gave the solution and all future visitors to this topic will appreciate it!

These simple actions take just seconds of your time, but go a long way in showing appreciation for community members and the Live Community as a whole!

The Live Community thanks you for your participation!