Full Disclosure mailing list archives
Re: PIX vs CheckPoint
From: Laurent LEVIER <llevier () argosnet com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 20:23:23 +0200
At 10:29 30/06/2004, Cyril Guibourg wrote:
AFAIK, a PIX can operate without NAT. Did I miss something ?
Yes, NAT can be disabled on Pix. See the 'nat' command.Simply put the appropriate line syntax and it will behaves as a normal Firewall. But only behaves because no routing daemon, and Pix keeps managing packets as a NAT box, he just does not change the source IP
Brgrds Laurent LEVIER Systems & Networks Security Expert, CISSP CISM _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
Current thread:
- PIX vs CheckPoint Darkslaker (Jun 29)
- Re: PIX vs CheckPoint David T Hollis (Jun 29)
- Re: PIX vs CheckPoint John Kinsella (Jun 29)
- Re: PIX vs CheckPoint Laurent LEVIER (Jun 29)
- Re: PIX vs CheckPoint Cyril Guibourg (Jun 30)
- Re: PIX vs CheckPoint Jaroslaw Sajko (Jun 30)
- Re: PIX vs CheckPoint Laurent LEVIER (Jun 30)
- Re: PIX vs CheckPoint Cyril Guibourg (Jun 30)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: PIX vs CheckPoint James Patterson Wicks (Jun 29)
- RE: PIX vs CheckPoint Eric Paynter (Jun 29)
- RE: PIX vs CheckPoint Gary E. Miller (Jun 29)
- Re: PIX vs CheckPoint John Kinsella (Jun 29)
- Re: PIX vs CheckPoint Eric Paynter (Jun 29)
- RE: PIX vs CheckPoint Tom Curry (Jun 29)
- Re: PIX vs CheckPoint Gary E. Miller (Jun 29)
- Re: PIX vs CheckPoint Eric Paynter (Jun 29)
- Re: PIX vs CheckPoint Jeff Kell (Jun 29)
- Re: PIX vs CheckPoint Matt Ostiguy (Jun 29)
- RE: PIX vs CheckPoint Eric Paynter (Jun 29)