Using GlobalProtect on multi-user server to gain User-ID visibility - possible?

cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Announcements
Please sign in to see details of an important advisory in our Customer Advisories area.

Using GlobalProtect on multi-user server to gain User-ID visibility - possible?

L0 Member

We've enjoyed using globalprotect in combination with palo alto firewall policies over the past few years to allow particular policies to only apply to particular users, who are of course identified by the user signing into the globalprotect client.

 

We were wondering if we could expand on this capability. We don't need VPN capability, we just want traffic from users signed into globalprotect to be tagged so it shows up in the 'monitoring' interface of the firewall web GUI as coming to/from particular users.

 

Would it be possible to use GlobalProtect in this way?

Can globalprotect be set up in a multi-user Windows server environment so that a single install of GP on a server could have multiple users all signed into their own 'instance' of globalprotect, so traffic from that server's IP address could be tagged so that 192.168.1.1 could have outgoing traffic tagged with users contoso\alice and contoso\bob at the same time?

 

And then, secondly, to have globalprotect not actually sending traffic through a VPN tunnel, but just routing as normal - all we want is the user ID tagging.

 

I figure this is a long shot but it would be super useful to us if it were possible.

1 REPLY 1

L4 Transporter

Hello @ZachHeise 

Using GP as an identity provider is possible. GP needs to "talk" with a VPN gateway on a regular base, but establishing a VPN tunnel is not required. Hence more or less the same config as for the remote users, but without the VPN part (see tab "internal" on portal config).

In addition to this, there is a component named "Terminal Server Agent". It does not work for all applications (e.g. SMB fileshare is not bound to a user). This limitation is due to the fact that it's not possible to enforce the source port for SMB.

  • 1715 Views
  • 1 replies
  • 0 Likes
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!