About aleksandar.astardzhiev

Hi @Nisha_Bharadia,   What GP version are you using? What OS are using the problematic users?   Looking at your logs I assume you have different GP config per user-group. And the problematic users are not matching any of the define gp portal -> agent ->  config   P 865-T19203 Mar 05 07:15:48:446736 Error( 252): Failed to get agent-config from portal configuration. P 865-T19203 Mar 05 07:15:48:446745 Debug( 620): No hip collection defined P 865-T19203 Mar 05 07:15:48:446750 Debug( 672): No agent-config defined   - Check If problematic users are part of the defined user groups - Check if the users are using same OS platform defined the agent config (win, mac, linux) - If the users were recently added to coresponding user group, wait for the group-mapping to refresh the information. Check you group-mapping config at what interval the fw is updating the data.   ... View more

Hi @BizBo    Are you scanning the dedicated management IP or one of the dataplane interfaces. Do you have any destination NAT that is refering to the IP address you are scanning? In the deny rule you have configured, you mentioned you have select any application, but what you have apply for services? Do you have interface management profile or GlobalProtect applied on this interface?   - If you are scanning the dedicated mgmt inteface not rule will have effect - unless your routing is not forwarding the mgmt traffic over the firewall itself. If you mgmt interface is directly connected to public network, no security rule is applied. You can only use "permit-ip" - If the IP your are scanning in used in destination NAT rule (or in bi-directional NAT), the actual security rule that will filter traffic to it must have the post-nat destination zone. So your untrust-untrust will not actually match - If you deny any application, but using default ports  you esentially block only "known applications on default ports". Firewall will still allow the initial packets (like tcp-hand-shake), because it needs to detect the application to understand which application it is and if it use its default ports. Proper way to define "deny rule" would be to use "any app" and "any service" -   ... View more

Hi @Amaro123 ,   I am not sure that using same IP pool for the two different gateways is good (not sure what word to use..) configuration. I believe I have read somewhere while ago that if you assing  same IP pool to two different agent config/user group this could cause IP conflict and firewall can assign the same ip to two different users. FW is monitoring the IP allocation "locally" for each agent config, without being aware of the all the pools configured on the GP gateway. I believe I read this mainly for same ip pool under one gateway, but in my humble opinion it should be a problem with two separate gateways. When you assign IP pool to gateway agent config FW will create static route (or split it to multiple static routes) pointing to the tunnel interface assosiated with gateway. If you assign same IP pool to two different gateways, I assume FW will try to create same static routes pointing to two different tunnel interfaces. Which could explain your issue -fw has static routes for IP pools pointing to tunnle.1 and tunnel.2, when you connect to gateway1 traffic is working as return traffic is taking first route. But when you connect to gateway2 return traffic is routed to wrong tunnel interface and traffic doesn't reach the user.   In any case I really don't like the idea of having same IP pool assigned to more than one gateway agent config (no matter if it is on same gateway or different). I just think FW will have problems with that.   But if you want, before trying with different IP pool, create a packet capture - listening on the inside interface (the lan behind the fw) - try connect to gateway2 with problematic group and generate traffic to inside (simple ping will do the trick) - check the capture - do you see replies hitting the inside interface ( this will confirm that you have bi-directional traffic behind the firewall and that fw is receiving all the traffic, but after that it doesn't route properly or dropping return traffic) ... View more

@FarzanaMustafa    "Each IP in the pool which is distributed to a GP Client needs to be added to the private interface as a secondary IP address," Wait what? Apologies I haven't seen PAN FW in AWS, so I could be wrong, but this sound insanly wrong...   It sound you are appling some kind of workaround for simple routing issue. When you assing IP pool to GP, each user will be allocated an IP address from it. So when GP user wants to reach anything behind the FW - the network behind it needs to know how to route back to the IP range used for the GP (to route the return traffic). Putting the IP address as secondary IP on the firewall will force the firewall to responde to traffic destine to that IP, but this is not the proper way to do it. Better way is to create route for the GP pool to point back to the FW. I haven't work with AWS, so I am not sure how exactly you can do that, but this is basic routing, so it doesn't make much difference between AWS and on-prem. ... View more

Hi @Amaro123 ,   "When user Fred is in Group1 he has normal access to the environment through the two gateways. When that same user is in Group2 he has normal access only through gateways 01. If you use 02 he does not access anything."   Having the above in mind and the logs you provide it looks to be like routing problem. I am assuming that the two gateways are assigning different IP pools to the connected users, but do they assign different range based on the user group?   I can imagine that gateway01 and 02 are assinging differen IP addresses based on the group membership. So when user is assigned to Group2 and connects to gateway02 he is assigned with ip address that your internal network doesn't route properly. If you look at the log details (the magnifying glass on the very left of your log entry you sent earlier) you will probably see that traffic is only in one direction - packets/bytes received will be zero. Or if you have internal firewall that is blocking the range assigned to users in group2 connected to gateway2.   In short - check what IP range is assigned when connected any gateway with any group and check if your internal network handle these ip ranges the same way. ... View more

Hi @reaper,   I was hoping for what you said to be true, but in our environment we see the opposite.   We have two separate firewalls with GP portal and gateway on each. We have configured user-id redistribution between the two firewalls (in both directions). So each FW1 should redistribute user-id from local gp to FW2 and vice versa.   From the user-id logs below you can see that when user connect to GP on FW1 it will redistribute it to FW2, but FW2 will redistribute the same entry back to FW1.   It is probably worth mentioning that we are using pre-logon GP  and fw receives only the username (without the domain) from gp, so we had to put the domain in authentication profile. This probably explain why "user provided by source" for any gp related logs is only username.   I am looking for a way to avoid this "redistribution loop", but so far no luck. ... View more

Hi @DavidMaas1 ,   It seems you are going in the right direction. First think I want to point out (I always start with this after it bit me in the past...) - By default firewall will receive and advertise (import and export) any rule that is in the BGP process - implicit allow. By once you create one rule for given peer, FW will switch to implicit deny - meaning that anything that is not matched by the rule you have configured for that peer will be denied (this is valid for both import and export).   So for me this boils down to two options: - Create allow rules and list the networks you want to import/export. Deny everything else with the implicit deny - Create allow all rule and create deny rules for the specific networks you don't want to import/export above the "allow-all".     ... View more

Hi @darren_g    You still can configure firewall that is managed by Panorama, but the config you apply stays locally. It will not sync with Panorama. In addition when you put Panorama to the equasion you need to start imagine the firewall configuration as to separate parts - rules, objects and anything related to policies (policy and objects tabs in fw gui) - network and device config (network and device tabs in the fw gui)   Config under network and device can have only one value, so if you configure something via Panorama, you can override it locally Config under policy and object can have many values, so any rule created locally will mix with the rules received from the Panorama. But as you can imagine you cannot have two objects or rules with same name, so if you try to configure something locally that is already pushed by panorama the commit will fail. ... View more

@Dominic_Longpre    One of our use just experiance issue when GP client just stopped sending HIP report to gateway. In the GP client logs we can only see that there are no logs for HIP report generation. At one point the GP has reconnect to gateway, but again without any HIP report.   I noticed that when you list ip-to-user mapping in addition to the user id info there will be information about the HIP profiles that this user will match.   I didn't checked that during the time of the issue, but my only guess at the moment is that not the HIP report is "aging out", but the ip-user mappin has been updated (for some reason) without information about the HIP. In my case it I am guessing it was caused by the "bug" in GP agent.     Did you find the root cause? ... View more

Hi @AlexandroDelAngel ,   At the begining of the month we experiance the same on two of our firewalls running 9.0.11. Our TAC support says that the problem is caused by EDL refresh job.   Issue: You reported issues with WebUI and SSH Access Issue. Yes, I have looked at the tech support file and I saw these, "mp ms.log 2021-02-01 10:00:02 2021-02-01 10:00:02.403 +0100 EDLRefresh job started processing. Dequeue time=2021/02/01 10:00:02 2021-02-01 10:00:02.777 +0100 EDL entry(0x7f49aed98000, 0x7f49f1450800, 0x7f49e6efc000 vsys1/Fab, 0, 1 ip) Entry not referenced by a rule mp ms.log 2021-02-01 10:00:02 2021-02-01 10:00:02.781 +0100 Error: pan_ebl_set_curl_proxy_info(pan_cfg_ebl.c:5930): failed to get proxy info mp ms.log 2021-02-01 10:00:02 2021-02-01 10:00:02.781 +0100 Error: pan_ebl_set_curl_proxy_info(pan_cfg_ebl.c:5930): failed to get proxy info mp ms.log 2021-02-01 10:00:02 2021-02-01 10:00:02.783 +0100 Error: pan_ebl_set_curl_proxy_info(pan_cfg_ebl.c:5930): failed to get proxy info." I saw that it matches a known issue, PAN-151808. EDL refresh job stuck when certificate profile used in the config for EDL server. Target Fix Version/s: 9.1.8, 10.0.5.  Note that this answer was provided at the begining of the month, back than bug ID PAN-151808 was not yet published publically. I can see it now in the addressed issues for the new 9.1.8, which was released yesterday.   Our support was not aware if this issue will be fixed in 9.0... His only suggestion for workaround was to not use certificate profile for EDLs.     I am still not convinced that this is the actuall reason, because our firewalls are running 9.0.11 (upgraded from 9.0.9) since end of December. And we use EDL with cert profile for very long time. I was expecting to see such issue more often as our EDL refresh every hour. On other hand we have two other firewalls also running 9.0.11, but they haven't experiance this issue and we don't use any EDL there... ... View more

Hi @Nikko , With vwire you can achive your goal for inter-vlan traffic inspection/filtering. IMHO the only advantache of putting the PA in front of the core switch in vwire mode is that you will not have to change the default gateway for all of your vlans. You can event split the VLAN in separate sub-interfaces for the vwire Virtual Wire Subinterfaces (paloaltonetworks.com) - to have better control when building the policy. BUT... The only problem with this approach would be that inter-vlan traffic will pass twise over your firewall: - once from host a (in vlan a) to core switch - second from core switch to dest b (in vlan b) So you have to take under the consideration when building your policy that you need two rules. And eventually if the device can handle the performance.   ... View more

Hey @SThatipelly ,   Default behaviour it to forward all multicast traffic in vwire mode - How to Block Multicast Traffic in a VWire (Virtual Wire) Setup - Knowledge Base - Palo Alto Networks   "Multicast traffic is blocked in the Layer-3 mode by default, but is forwarded by default in the Virtual Wire mode." ... View more

Hi @Robert-META ,   The only way to achive your goal, that I can think of is to use virtual systems (vsys). Unfortunately this come with some drawbacks:  - Massive change for the firewall to split the existing configuration.  - Each device come with "base license" for multity vsys, but if you need more vsys you need to purchase additional license  - Each model has different max number of vsys - This could be your deal breakers. Looking at your post I can imagine, that you have one single firewall with huge amount of sub-interfaces/zones for  each school. If you want to create separate vsys for each district I am not sure that your device will be capable to handle so many. But it really depends on what model you are using. You can use "comparation tool" - Next-Generation Firewalls - Product Selection - Palo Alto Networks (just compare your model with something random, this wil give you really nice formated table of the max capacity for your device) {I like to read it that way instead of searching datasheets}.     By the way while I was typing this I was thinking for another solution, but sure how doable is for you, because it will require lots of programming - use the API to read the policy. Since you only need to have read-only access, I can imagine you can do the following: - Assign each school district unique tag - Configure all objects and rules for specific district with that tag - Using the API read the whole firewall config (at least what is relevant - rules, objects, zones, etc) - With a bit of programming magic create web page that will visualise the data from the firewall API - Using the tags you can create "filter" so each user will see only data that is associated with his district.   ... View more

Hi @FrankMurray ,   This is one of the reason I really hate setup that requires default route pointing to VPN tunnel. I would suggest you do to the following, which unfortunately will require a massive change:   1. Create two separate virtual-rotuers (vr). 2. Assing your outside/public fw interface to vr1 and configure the default route via the public interface 3. Assing your lan/internal fw interface to vr2. 4. Configure your IPsec tunnel to use your public/outside interface for local peer IP, but assing the tunnel interface to vr2 5. Configure the default route for vr2 to the tunnel interface.   This will allow you to have default route for the internal resource pointing to the tunnel, while the fw still have default route pointing to the next-hop via the outside interface. After that is should be enough to set the service route to use the public interface which will take the default route from vr1 of to public internet and not vpn. ... View more