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
- Get Started
- News & Events
- Collaboration
- Education Services
- Technologies
- Next-Generation Firewall
- GlobalProtect
- Threat Prevention Services
- Endpoint Protection
- SSL Decryption
- App-ID
- Content-ID
- User-ID
- 5G
- IoT Security
- Cloud Identity Engine
- Panorama
- AIOps for NGFW
Network Security
- Prisma Access
- Prisma Cloud
- Prisma SD-WAN
- Cloud NGFW for AWS
- CN-Series
- VM-Series:
- Private Cloud
- OCI
- Alibaba
- AWS
- GCP
- Azure
Cloud Security
- Cortex XDR
- Cortex XSOAR
- Cortex Data Lake
- Cortex Xpanse
Security Operations
- Resources
About CSavoy
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 CSavoy
06-20-2022
6Posts
0Likes
2Solutions
Jun 20, 2022Last Visited
User
Activity
User
Profile
Latest posts by CSavoy
| Subject | Views | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 2470 | 02-04-2021 08:33 AM | |
| 1069 | 02-04-2021 02:00 AM | |
| 1096 | 02-03-2021 10:59 PM | |
| 1526 | 06-18-2020 11:14 PM | |
| 2620 | 02-11-2019 08:19 AM |
Posts I Liked
| Subject | Likes | Author | Latest Post |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 Like | |||
| 2 Likes | |||
| 2 Likes | |||
| 2 Likes | |||
| 1 Like |
User Badges
Community Statistics
| Member Since | 09-22-2016 01:48 AM |
| Date Last Visited | 06-20-2022 07:43 AM |
| Posts | 6 |
02-04-2021
08:33 AM
Hi Marcus,
I'm new with Minemeld and never used the old Azure Miner.
But I found the list we get using the new miner very big and investigated further.
The solution I found is to set a filter in the Minemeld processor, selecting only the prefixes having a null value "" into the azure_system_service_list" :
This way you get all the "AzureCloud" prefixes, which should be like the old miner...
If that's not enough, you can also play with some "Regional" filters, like this :
NB : Do not use this basic filter
- azure_region == 'uksouth'
Because most prefixes appears twice in the .json file, one in the regional section, and a second time in the 'null' section at the end. And the default Miner retains only the last value it sees, i.e (view of the log) :
... View more
02-04-2021
02:00 AM
I found the answer here, thank you Dpurton
https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/minemeld-discussions/azure-active-directory-ip-ranges/m-p/310699#M3569
Here is my final filter :
infilters: - actions: - accept conditions: - __method == 'withdraw' name: accept withdraws - actions: - accept conditions: - contains(azure_region_list, 'switzerlandn') == true name: accept switzerlandn - actions: - drop name: drop all
Apply this filter into an aggregator of type " stdlib.aggregatorIPv4Generic" and you will get all the prefixes for the desired region. If you need many regions, just add many actions, like this :
- actions: - accept conditions: - contains(azure_region_list, 'switzerlandn') == true name: accept switzerlandn - actions: - accept conditions: - contains(azure_region_list, 'northeurope') == true name: accept northeurope
... View more
02-03-2021
10:59 PM
Hello,
Using Miner "azure-public-cloudIPsWithServiceTags", I'm trying to get all the subnets from the Azure Region "switzerlandn".
I am using a filter I found in this forum :
- actions:
- accept
conditions:
- azure_region == 'switzerlandn'
- share_level == 'green'
name: accept azure IP for region switzerlandn
But it doesn't work... I have only a few prefixes
Looking at the .json file, I found the missing prefixes in 2 sections, the first is my "switzerlandn" section, the other has no label :
"name": "AzureCloud", "id": "AzureCloud", "properties": { "changeNumber": 61, "region": "", "regionId": 0, "platform": "Azure", "systemService": "", "addressPrefixes": [ "13.64.0.0/16", "13.65.0.0/16",
...
Looking at Minemeld's logs, I see the following for a missing prefix (ouput of azure-public-cloudIPsWithServiceTags Miner) :
"_age_out": 4294967295000, "confidence": 100, "azure_system_service_list": [ "" ], "azure_platform_list": [ "azure" ], "azure_region": "", "share_level": "green", "azure_platform": "Azure", "_last_run": 1612367795560, "sources": [ "azure-public-cloudIPsWithServiceTags" ], "azure_name": "AzureCloud", "azure_name_list": [ "azurecloud", "azurecloud.switzerlandn" ], "azure_id_list": [ "azurecloud", "azurecloud.switzerlandn" ], "azure_region_list": [ "", "switzerlandn" ], "azure_system_service": "", "first_seen": 1611921383932, "azure_id": "AzureCloud", "type": "IPv4", "last_seen": 1611921383932 }
Did you see the value of azure_region and the azure_region_list ? This explains why my filter (azure_region == "switzerlandn") doesn't work. The Miner puts in the "azure_region" field the last value it read from the .json file... And in my case the last value is ""...
Now my questions :
- I'm looking for a filter that will test if "switzerlandn" is contained in the azure_region_list. Any idea ?
- Or a way to modify the Miner, to avoid the "concatenation" of the prefixes that appear twice in the .json file.
Any idea ?
Thanks for your help !
Christophe
... View more
06-18-2020
11:14 PM
Hello everybody, We are trying to replace our Lan-to-Lan concentrator (currently a Cisco ASA) with a PAN-5220 version 8.1. On the Cisco ASA firewall, we are currently doing source and destination NAT for each incoming connection. We change the source IP address because our partners use many different private subnets that we can't route or that we also use. And we also change the destination IP address, for the same reason. We change our internal private IP address to some public IP addresses that our partners can easily route to us. On Cisco Asa we configure NAT rules based on objects. The source NAT is configured for each partner's subnet and the destination NAT is configured for each of our servers. Both NAT are then applied when the connection is made. Now with Palo Alto... As only one NAT rule applies, and we want to make source and destination NAT, we are supposed to configure a different NAT rule for each possible connection... As we have ~ 30 partners and ~ 200 servers, this can lead to an endless NAT ruleset, assuming that each partner could reach each server (this is not the case but let's assume...). Do you have an idea how we can work around that ? We would like to manage the Source NAT rules on a side and the Destination NAT rules on the other, and have them combined when traffic passes through the Firewall. This means that packets have to pass twice through the NAT ruleset and that's what we are unable to do properly... The only way we found is to send the packets out of the firewall after the first NAT and then an external router sends the packets back to the firewall in order to match the second NAT rule. We also imagined to use an external cable between 2 interfaces of the PAN firewall, each interface being in a different zone and VR, and use this link as an external loop. Any other solution that would be more "elegant" ? Thanks in advance for your suggestion. Best Regards, Christophe
... View more
02-11-2019
08:19 AM
To Terjelundbo, Would it be possible to get your TAC ticket number or the bug reference please ? I'm facing the same issue with version 8.0.15 and would like further information about the workarounds. Thanks in advance and best regards, Christophe
... View more
Contact Me
| Online Status |
Offline
|
| Date Last Visited |
06-20-2022
07:43 AM
|
Latest Tags
No tags yet
LEGAL NOTICES
Copyright 2007 - 2022 - Palo Alto Networks