This website uses cookies essential to its operation, for analytics, and for personalized content. By continuing to browse this site, you acknowledge the use of cookies.
For details on cookie usage on our site, read our Privacy Policy
For details on cookie usage on our site, read our Privacy Policy
Turn on suggestions
Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.
Showing results for
About FrancoisNoel
Turn on suggestions
Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.
Showing results for
- LIVEcommunity
- About FrancoisNoel
06-14-2022
6Posts
0Likes
1Solution
Jun 14, 2022Last Visited
User
Activity
User
Profile
Latest posts by FrancoisNoel
| Subject | Views | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 420 | 06-02-2022 07:08 AM | |
| 4438 | 12-17-2021 07:02 AM | |
| 3148 | 12-16-2021 06:52 AM | |
| 1435 | 04-30-2021 08:07 AM | |
| 1477 | 04-30-2021 07:11 AM |
Posts I Liked
| Subject | Likes | Author | Latest Post |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 Like |
User Badges
Community Statistics
| Member Since | 01-08-2021 09:55 AM |
| Date Last Visited | 06-14-2022 02:46 PM |
| Posts | 6 |
06-02-2022
07:08 AM
Hi,
The following problem involves a firewall (10.249.0.13) wanting to close a BGP connection with its neighboring switch (10.249.0.14).
The switch answers with a BGP NOTIFICATION message that contains 'No supported AFI/SAFI'. (separate issue) The firewall then sends a FIN to the switch to close the TCP connection. Follows a series of FIN retransmissions from the firewall and ACK retransmissions from the switch.
Is there a way to determine which side is not understanding here?
I have included an excerpt of the .pcap.
Thanks Please note you are posting a public message where community members and experts can provide assistance. Sharing private information such as serial numbers or company information is not recommended.
... View more
12-17-2021
07:02 AM
Same here, I find this command is buggy
... View more
12-16-2021
06:52 AM
Using ms-ds-smb will autorise all versions along with their vulnerabilities. You simply have to be careful while using containers depending on the applications they contain. As always, as with port-based rules, configure the least number of required applications and ports for your needs.
... View more
04-30-2021
08:07 AM
Thank you very much BPry Just an FYI. I first tried this: delete device-group INTERNAL post-rulebase security rules SEC-APP application [ ssl ] But that didn't work because of the [ ] I removed the [ ] and all was fine. Thanks again! Much appreciated!
... View more
04-30-2021
07:11 AM
Thanks for your reply BPry but what is the set command line to remove a single app or service?
... View more
04-30-2021
05:46 AM
Hi, I was wondering if anybody has experience working with the scripting mode in the way I need. Using the following commands, it is possible to add a single application or service to a rule: set device-group INTERNAL post-rulebase security rules SEC-APP application [ ssl ] set device-group INTERNAL post-rulebase security rules WEB-APP service [ http ] I would like to know if the opposite is feasible: is there a command to remove a single service or a single application from a rule without having to reconfigure the whole rule? If this is not possible then the only way is to delete the rule and reconfigure it altogether? Thanks
... View more
Contact Me
| Online Status |
Offline
|
| Date Last Visited |
06-14-2022
02:46 PM
|
LEGAL NOTICES
Copyright 2007 - 2022 - Palo Alto Networks