If you decide to upgrade to the new versions of PIX code, make sure you check the release notes: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/sw/secursw/ps2120/prod_release_notes_lis t.html You should be OK on memory since the requirements for 5.2 and 6.2 are the same, but some of the older PIX (10000 and Classic) are no longer supported. If you are trying to audit/clean your rulebase, I agree with Mark that you should move to ACL format. You may be tempted to just upgrade and then try to clean up, but if you can get around it, don't. Audit the old conduits, map out the flows needed, and build again from scratch in the new format. Conduits and ACL formats can technically live together on the same box (the PIX will evaluate one and then the other) but you will drive yourself nuts. If you have any way to build a new one in parallel, take it. The conduit and ACL formats are sometimes backward from each other. The link below is for the command reference. (some of the commands aren't on the site but are in the pdf) http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/sw/secursw/ps2120/products_command_refer ence_chapter09186a00800eb6eb.html Scot > -----Original Message----- > From: Ben Nagy [mailto:benat_private] > Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 2:15 PM > To: 'Mark McCreary'; firewall-wizardsat_private > Subject: RE: [fw-wiz] PIX Firewall IP Addresses > > > Good luck. > > First, you probably want to upgrade your PIX to the latest version > (memory and flash permitting). 5.2 is not a happy version, > from memory, > and every PIX release contains several security fixes. > > Second, don't use conduits. They'll die soon (and should > have already). > Switch to ACLs, and then you'll also know how to do ACLs on Cisco > routers as a bonus. > > Finally, welcome to Netmasks. Either learn to think binary, > or do what I > do and get used to writing out: > "128 64 32 16 8 4 2 1" > > in big rows on scrap paper. > > You're looking for bit strings that have a 1 wherever you > only want a > fixed value for a given bit and a 0 when you don't mind any > value. For > example, "192.168.1.0 255.255.255.0" matches only > 192.168.1.anything. > > In your example, you want 200-202, which means that all the > bits except > 2 and 1 MUST be fixed (110001??). > > If you allow ANY combination of the last two bits then you > actually get > 200 (00) 201 (01) 202 (10) and 203 (11). > > That's not quite right, so your rule looks like: > deny x.x.x.203 255.255.255.255 - we don't want this > permit x.x.x.200 255.255.255.252 - 203 has been blocked > above, so this > now allows just 200-202 > (252 == 00000011) > > Two rules instead of three. Not much of an improvement, but it's a > start, and it gets better the bigger your ranges are. > > (Sideline: IOS ACLs ONLY) For large and tricky ranges you > can actually > use the wilcard masks when all the '1' bits are NOT flush > right (many > people do not know this, for some reason) which often > allows some quite > spectacular, if very hard to understand, ACL compression. > Fate sends you > the request "permit only 192.168.1.2, .16, .18, .32, .34, > .48 and .50"? > Do you curse? No! You just slip one "permit 192.168.1.0 > 0.0.0.50" into > your ruleset and wait for confused looks from the auditors. > Unluckily > (or luckily, maybe ;) you can't do that with PIXen. > > I'd recommend a cruise past www.cisco.com and casting an > eye over the > configuration guides. They're pretty good. > > Oh, and please don't forget to do a compliance test when > you're done. > > Cheers, > > -- > Ben Nagy > Network Security Specialist > Mb: +41792504687 PGP Key ID: 0x1A86E304 > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: firewall-wizards-adminat_private > > [mailto:firewall-wizards-adminat_private] On Behalf > > Of Mark McCreary > > Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 4:41 PM > > To: firewall-wizardsat_private > > Subject: [fw-wiz] PIX Firewall IP Addresses > > > > > > We are using a CISCO PIX firewall version 5.2(5), with both > > NAT and PAT > > enabled. My task is to clean-up/reduce the number of conduit > > rules. I am > > new at this. > > > > While reviewing the rules in place, I noticed many cases > > where individual > > rules are written for consecutive IP addresses. My question > > is whether > > the syntax allows for a "range" of addresses to be used in > > one rule. For > > example, > > > > Rules written to allow access from source addresses - > 172.165.50.200, > > 172.165.50.201, 172.165.50.202 > > > > Can a source address on one rule replace the 3 rules > above, such as > > 172.165.50.200-202 > > > > Thank you for any assistance. > > > > Regards, > > > > Mark McCreary > > _______________________________________________ > > firewall-wizards mailing list firewall-wizardsat_private > > http://honor.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards > > > > _______________________________________________ > firewall-wizards mailing list > firewall-wizardsat_private > http://honor.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards > _______________________________________________ firewall-wizards mailing list firewall-wizardsat_private http://honor.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 18 2002 - 11:07:55 PDT