<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: HTTPS Inspection and Multiple Ingress Interfaces in Firewall and Security Management</title>
    <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/HTTPS-Inspection-and-Multiple-Ingress-Interfaces/m-p/272737#M103895</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Forked this into a new thread, given the age of the thread this was posted to.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;The answer is the number of ingress/egress interfaces shouldn't matter here.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;For outbound inspection (i.e. users browsing the Internet), the certificate is generated "on the fly" using the same DN, etc as the original certificate.&lt;BR /&gt;Provided the end user trusts the gateway's CA, the certificate should validate.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;For inbound inspection (i.e. users from the Internet browsing YOUR servers), you're using either the original server certificate OR one that a random user on the Internet should be able to validate.&lt;BR /&gt;Here, SANs might be useful (especially if the certificate serves multiple sites).&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Mar 2026 18:21:58 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>PhoneBoy</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2026-03-06T18:21:58Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>HTTPS Inspection and Multiple Ingress Interfaces</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/HTTPS-Inspection-and-Multiple-Ingress-Interfaces/m-p/272671#M103894</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Query -&amp;nbsp; If I have a GW with HTTPs inspect enabled, but have multiple ingress interfaces that traffic needs to be inspected how does this work.&lt;BR /&gt;I assume that when the CA certificate is generated this will have a FQDN, this FQDN would then be resolved by DNS, to an IP, so if the GW interface IP is different would this cause a problem?&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;I've not seen an SK in order to create a CA certificate with SANs, or I could have tried that with multiple 'A' records in DNS.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Mar 2026 18:15:20 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/HTTPS-Inspection-and-Multiple-Ingress-Interfaces/m-p/272671#M103894</guid>
      <dc:creator>genisis__</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2026-03-06T18:15:20Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: HTTPS Inspection and Multiple Ingress Interfaces</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/HTTPS-Inspection-and-Multiple-Ingress-Interfaces/m-p/272737#M103895</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Forked this into a new thread, given the age of the thread this was posted to.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;The answer is the number of ingress/egress interfaces shouldn't matter here.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;For outbound inspection (i.e. users browsing the Internet), the certificate is generated "on the fly" using the same DN, etc as the original certificate.&lt;BR /&gt;Provided the end user trusts the gateway's CA, the certificate should validate.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;For inbound inspection (i.e. users from the Internet browsing YOUR servers), you're using either the original server certificate OR one that a random user on the Internet should be able to validate.&lt;BR /&gt;Here, SANs might be useful (especially if the certificate serves multiple sites).&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Mar 2026 18:21:58 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/HTTPS-Inspection-and-Multiple-Ingress-Interfaces/m-p/272737#M103895</guid>
      <dc:creator>PhoneBoy</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2026-03-06T18:21:58Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

