Adding app depencendies

cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Adding app depencendies

L4 Transporter

This might be a dumb question, but I visited 3 clients in the past 2 weeks that did not include application depenendcies in their policy rules

 

For example, they'll have a rule allowing webex-base, but don't add rtcp, rtp-base, or stun.  To be fair, at least 1 of them had a rule that contains an application filter that allows risks 1, 2 and 3, so in that regards, they are allowing the applications.  When apply a policy, you'll still get the long list of warnings and that's annoying to me. I guess I'm picky :)

 

How do you all handle it

1 ACCEPTED SOLUTION

Accepted Solutions

Cyber Elite
Cyber Elite

@ce1028,

Ya this one gets kind of annoying because there really isn't a good way to fix it. There's an existing Feature Request to allow the ability to supress these warnings, but at the moment it hasn't been implemented at all. 

That being said, depending on the configuration this really may not be an issue. Say for example they have rules that already allow [ rtcp rtp-base stun ] further along the rulebase, and then a seperate rule for simply webex-base. You'll still get the warnings, but due to the way the firewall actually works when scanning sessions it won't cause any issues at all. 

I've always viewed the warnings as more of a "hey, this might not work the best as configured unless you've already allowed the following". 

View solution in original post

2 REPLIES 2

Cyber Elite
Cyber Elite

@ce1028,

Ya this one gets kind of annoying because there really isn't a good way to fix it. There's an existing Feature Request to allow the ability to supress these warnings, but at the moment it hasn't been implemented at all. 

That being said, depending on the configuration this really may not be an issue. Say for example they have rules that already allow [ rtcp rtp-base stun ] further along the rulebase, and then a seperate rule for simply webex-base. You'll still get the warnings, but due to the way the firewall actually works when scanning sessions it won't cause any issues at all. 

I've always viewed the warnings as more of a "hey, this might not work the best as configured unless you've already allowed the following". 

View solution in original post

@BPry hmmm that would be nice feature. Although if rule1 had [rtcp rtp-base stun] and rule 2 had [web-browsing,ssl,webex-base], the firewall should probably be smart enough to realize you have all you need and not give the warning.

 

 

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 LIVEcommunity as a whole!

The LIVEcommunity thanks you for your participation!