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
About davehaertel
Turn on suggestions
Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.
- LIVEcommunity
- About davehaertel
11-09-2017
4Posts
0Likes
0Solutions
Nov 09, 2017Last Visited
User
Activity
User
Profile
Latest posts by davehaertel
| Subject | Views | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 1809 | 09-13-2017 01:58 PM | |
| 1815 | 09-13-2017 12:30 PM | |
| 1823 | 09-13-2017 06:46 AM | |
| 2619 | 09-13-2017 06:02 AM |
User Badges
Community Statistics
| Member Since | 08-29-2017 12:35 PM |
| Date Last Visited | 11-09-2017 04:06 PM |
| Posts | 4 |
09-13-2017
01:58 PM
I agree completely. If you aren't careful you can drown in meaningless data, looking for that tiny little bit that actually indicates that there's a hole that needs to be plugged lol. I spend an hour every morning just going through the windows logs and I think I have that finally narrowed down to just the basic stuff that I'm concerned about, but moving forward to the Cisco and Palo Alto additions, I'm going to easily have 2 hours a day just going through my checklists. Oh well time to ask for an assistant LOL!
... View more
09-13-2017
06:02 AM
Basic setup: Palo Alto at the perimeter Cisco ASA DMZ Splunk collecting all logs and running reports from both Cisco and Palo Alto Failed login reports based on the Palo Alto logs sent daily Allowed traffic pattern Inbound SFTP connection NAT'd to SFTP server using SSH Key authentication So, we allow SFTP traffic through the firewall into the SFTP server in the DMZ, and in my daily failed login attempts report, I am seeing thousands of failed guest account login attempts with the source being the Palo Alto on the perimeter. This is on a daily basis. The crux of the question is, is this noise? Meaning is this how the Palo Alto is interpreting this NAT? Have we got a configuration problem? Is this safe to ignore? Or is this just a persistent bot?
... View more
Contact Me
| Online Status |
Offline
|
| Date Last Visited |
11-09-2017
04:06 PM
|
Latest Tags
No tags yet
LEGAL NOTICES
Copyright 2007 - 2023 - Palo Alto Networks