About MohammedAsik

MohammedAsik

Hi No, In security rule zones are defined Regards Mohammed Asik

MohammedAsik

HI Mayur Yes, Its happening only for specific source and destination. log session end and start were enabled on security policy. One more time I explain you clearly. I have one security rule that contains 5 source ips from trust zone and one destination ip from another local zone. For 2 src IPs we haven't see the logs in Gu but for other 3 Ip's we are able see the logs which are in same security rule. For those 2 src IP's traffic logs were received one day before. Is there any process need to restart to to fix this issue ? Regards Mohammed Asik

MohammedAsik

Hi Guys One of our customer facing issue that unable to see recent traffic logs for particular source and destination in gui. But we could see the live session on cli by the command "show session all filter source 192.168.x.X destination 172.17.X.X". Session working as expected. but we need to see the traffic logs on gui. restarted the mgmt server but no luck. anyone facing this kind of issue. please share your thoughts Regards Mohammed Asik

MohammedAsik

Hi Team Unable to see pre-defined EDL IP list in security rule destination zone on panorama. but In firewall I can able to see the predefined EDL in security rule destination address. antivirus, content version all are same and installed on both devices ( panorama and firewall ). Note: In panorama for other firewall I can able see and add the pre-defined EDL ip list in destination zone Regards Mohammed Asik

MohammedAsik · ‎10-23-2020

Hi, So as per your statement my requirement is not achievable.. right ? Asik

MohammedAsik · ‎10-23-2020

Hi Team In Palo alto firewall whatever the time based policies is going to expire for that we want to configure the mail alerts or reports for example if any rule is going to expire on date of 24 October we should get report or mail alert of those rules by today (2 days before) , how we can achieve this? Is it possible in palo alto ? Regards Mohammed Asik

MohammedAsik · ‎10-23-2020

Hi Team As we could not able to find out the below vulnerability which is found on below model during penetration testing So , Please help us to find out the details for this vulnerability and let us know if any workaround is there or not. CVE-ID-2020-7676 Anyone got the similar vulnerability ? Regards Mohammed Asik

MohammedAsik · ‎07-20-2020

Hi All Hope you all are safe and good. I have one small query. If global protect VPN automatically disconnected ( For example internet issue ), it is not showing alert popup message on screen that GP vpn disconnected. Is there any way to show GP VPN disconnect popup message on user screen? Regards Mohammed Asik

MohammedAsik · ‎04-16-2020

Hi Team In sec policy I have allowed for some users only RDP and SSH application. But these users are able to use WINSCP application because WINSCP application also using port 22. I want to block winscp application but allow ssh application. How can we achieve this ? Please help us. Regards Mohammed Asik

MohammedAsik · ‎04-03-2020

Hi @JoergSchuetter Do you have "Save User Credentials" enabled on the portal config (authentication)? Yes, I have enabled this option. After disabled GP asking credentials for every time to connect VPN.( In my lab). But its not working in one of our customer machine. After I tried to disabled the 3rd option "Clear Single-Sign-On Credentials on Logout" its working in customer machine. Now issue got resolved. Thanks a lot @JoergSchuetter

MohammedAsik · ‎04-02-2020

Hi Team My firewall PAN os is 8.1.9 and GP version is 5.0.5. Issue : Whenever I try to disconnect and connect the GP, its connected without asking credentials. If i manually give sign out from GP then only its asking for login credentials to connect GP. My requirement is Whenever I try to connect GP it should ask Login credentials and then connect..without Login credential it should not connect. Please help me out in this Regards Mohammed Asik

MohammedAsik · ‎03-11-2020

Hi Team Please let us know the total number of concurrent Users that can connect to Global protect vpn on the PA 3220 firewall. Regards Mohammed Asik

MohammedAsik · ‎03-03-2020

Hi Team We are facing issues with the newer version of global protect client version 5.0.8 on MAC machines. The client once installed, doesn’t ask for credentials & try’s to connect directly to the vpn. Please let us know if there is an know bug relate to such issues. Regards Mohammed Asik

MohammedAsik · ‎02-12-2020

@adm2devos Please configure the customize URL category for https://urlfiltering.paloaltonetworks.com/test-grayware and add it in URL filtering with action block. configure decryption policy with ssl forward proxy. Then this page will be block.I tested in my lab its working as expected. Regards Mohammed Asik

MohammedAsik · ‎02-12-2020

Hi Mayur Issue got resolved after added the IP on tunnel interface.and PBF policy.I followed the below KB article. https://knowledgebase.paloaltonetworks.com/KCSArticleDetail?id=kA10g000000ClIeCAK Thanks for your support. regards Mohammed Asik

MohammedAsik · ‎02-11-2020

Hi Mayur Yes, still I am facing this issue

MohammedAsik · ‎02-07-2020

Hi Svelez Yes I have security rule to allow from inside to vpn zone. Please find the below security rule and static route for respective tunnel traffic 144.250.3.222/32 0.0.0.0 10 A S tunnel.10 { from inside; source 172.31.62.0/24; source-region none; to vpn; destination 144.250.3.222; destination-region none; user any; category any; application/service 0:any/any/any/any; action allow; icmp-unreachable: no terminal yes; }

MohammedAsik · ‎02-07-2020

Please find the below ss tunnel.10 interface

MohammedAsik · ‎02-07-2020

Mayur its a tunnel interface. thats why its showing next hop as 0.0.0.0. In traffic logs its taking the internet rule and its not pass through tunnel interface. its passing through internet interface Ethernet 1/1. Mohammed Asik

MohammedAsik · ‎02-07-2020

Please find the below routing and security policy details 144.250.3.222/32 0.0.0.0 10 A S tunnel.10 { from inside; source 172.31.62.0/24; source-region none; to vpn; destination 144.250.3.222; destination-region none; user any; category any; application/service 0:any/any/any/any; action allow; icmp-unreachable: no terminal yes; } Regards Mohammed Asik

MohammedAsik · ‎02-07-2020

HI Mayur I have configured proxy ID s also. but its not working regards Mohammed Asik

MohammedAsik · ‎02-07-2020

HI Team I have created S2S VPN tunnel between palo alto and cyberoam firewall. Tunnel is up but the traffic is not flow. Under Cyberoam firewall there is one server with public IP 144.21.X.X. From palo alto we need to reach the peer end public IP 144.21.X.X via the vpn tunnel. but whenever I tried to reach the peer end public IP 144.21.X.X its going via the internet rule instead of vpn rule. Our requirement is that traffic should go via the vpn tunnel to reach the IP 144.21.X.X I have configured the PBF policy but its not work.. Please help on this Regards Mohammed Asik

MohammedAsik · ‎11-29-2019

HI Team Our customer has one requirement that need to upload files in Wetransfer application but its also using the web-browsing application to upload the same file. If i allow the Web-browsing application in policy unnecessary websites are getting open. Requirement is specific user uploading files to wetransfer application at the same time they are not browse anything all should be blocked. Please help us to achieving this Thanks in advance Regards Mohammed Asik

MohammedAsik · ‎11-04-2019

Hi Team Please let us know the IPS signature for Zero Day vulnerability in Google Chrome. Need to block this.Please help us. Regards Mohammed Asik

MohammedAsik · ‎11-01-2019

In traffic logs, I could see the session reason end was " aged out". But everything seems to be expected. For internet traffic NAT applied and could see destination address ip has been resolved. but in web browser its not resolved ( tried the same thing with three different machines. ingress interface --> tunnel.2 and egress interface --> eth 1/2 as per the configuration

MohammedAsik · ‎11-01-2019

Hi Team 1. After connected the global protect DNS resolution is not happening. but i can able to do ping 8.8.8.8. 2. In nslookup google.com also resolved. But if I ping the same google.com dns is not resolving. 3. If I browse any website, that is not working due to dns resolution issue. My dns IP is 8.8.8.8. Is anyone experienced like this type of issue. Please suggest some resolution for this Best regards Mohammed Asik

MohammedAsik · ‎10-30-2019

Hi Team We are planning to upgrade the firewall from 8.0.9 to 9.0.3-h3. Currently in my firewall we are using the URL filtering overrides, Authentication policy and API key life. In PAN 9.0 release information introduced the some new features changes to default behavior regarding URL filtering overrides, Authentication policy and API key life are as below snapshot. My concern is will this new features impact post OS upgradation ? and want to know in detail from the below snapshot. Regards Mohammed Asik

MohammedAsik · ‎09-18-2019

Hi julio My policy is trust to untrust and source destination is any any.. Not restrict anything

MohammedAsik · ‎09-18-2019

Hi Team In my premise we have more than 200 machines, In all of the machine Captive portal is not working on chrome browser only but its working fine on IE and firefox browser. Its not seems like browser issue. Something related to PA firewall. Please help me to fix the issue. Regards Mohammed Asik

MohammedAsik · ‎08-28-2019

Hi Vince Yes, In security rule I have allowed the application Ping , SSL, FTP and service as Application-default. Since the unwanted ports are hit the server without allowing the mentioned port Regards Mohammed

Date Registered	‎02-11-2019 01:00 AM
Date Last Visited	3 hours ago
Total Messages Posted	58
Total Likes Received	2

Online Status	Offline
Date Last Visited	3 hours ago

Strata

Prisma

Cortex

About MohammedAsik