<?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: Sandblast and .msg attachments  in Firewall and Security Management</title>
    <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Sandblast-and-msg-attachments/m-p/16479#M13559</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Already did (please avoid generic answers)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Does anybody know what is the default behavior?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;scanning files inside .msg should be a basic thing&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 15 Nov 2018 08:51:42 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Shahar_Grober</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2018-11-15T08:51:42Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Sandblast and .msg attachments</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Sandblast-and-msg-attachments/m-p/16477#M13557</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi,&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Can it be that Check Point Threat Prevention and Sandblast in MTA doesn't scan "*.msg" attachments inside an email?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I did the following tests:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN style="text-decoration: underline;"&gt;First Test (Baseline)&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I sent a malicious .doc file attached to an email via the&amp;nbsp;MTA&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Result: email is scanned and find malicious by the Gateway AV which is great!&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN style="text-decoration: underline;"&gt;Second Test&amp;nbsp;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I took the same malicious doc file and attached it to a message. Then I took the message saved it as a .msg file and attached it to another email so the attachment in the mail is .msg and not .doc file.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;Result: when I send the email, it is not scanned by AV or Threat Emulation, file is completly&amp;nbsp;bypassed by AV/TE and arrives at the recipient&amp;nbsp;mailbox with the infected .msg&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;Is it a configuration issue, a bug or a really simple way to evade Check Point Threat Prevention?&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;(Mime Nesting is configured on the Threat Prevention profile)&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 15 Nov 2018 08:26:45 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Sandblast-and-msg-attachments/m-p/16477#M13557</guid>
      <dc:creator>Shahar_Grober</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-11-15T08:26:45Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Sandblast and .msg attachments</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Sandblast-and-msg-attachments/m-p/16478#M13558</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;I would involve TAC here...&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 15 Nov 2018 08:42:53 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Sandblast-and-msg-attachments/m-p/16478#M13558</guid>
      <dc:creator>G_W_Albrecht</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-11-15T08:42:53Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Sandblast and .msg attachments</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Sandblast-and-msg-attachments/m-p/16479#M13559</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Already did (please avoid generic answers)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Does anybody know what is the default behavior?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;scanning files inside .msg should be a basic thing&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 15 Nov 2018 08:51:42 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Sandblast-and-msg-attachments/m-p/16479#M13559</guid>
      <dc:creator>Shahar_Grober</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-11-15T08:51:42Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Sandblast and .msg attachments</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Sandblast-and-msg-attachments/m-p/16480#M13560</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Then include that fact in your question, please ! .msg are&amp;nbsp;just not&amp;nbsp;supported as attachement file types for TE. Looks like a RFE is needed. Refer to &lt;A href="https://supportcenter.checkpoint.com/supportcenter/portal?eventSubmit_doGoviewsolutiondetails=&amp;amp;solutionid=sk106123" target="_blank"&gt;sk106123 - File types supported by SandBlast Threat Emulation&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 15 Nov 2018 09:03:40 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Sandblast-and-msg-attachments/m-p/16480#M13560</guid>
      <dc:creator>G_W_Albrecht</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-11-15T09:03:40Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Sandblast and .msg attachments</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Sandblast-and-msg-attachments/m-p/16481#M13561</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Can anyone confirm that AV is not supported with MTA on R80.10?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;If&amp;nbsp;This is true then the .msg attachments will not be scanned by the MTA+TE.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;This is still basic feature that should be supported by TE&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Nov 2018 10:17:47 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Sandblast-and-msg-attachments/m-p/16481#M13561</guid>
      <dc:creator>Shahar_Grober</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-11-19T10:17:47Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Sandblast and .msg attachments</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Sandblast-and-msg-attachments/m-p/16482#M13562</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi Shahar,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;in general the "old" AB blade (which is streaming network traffic inspection BEFORE the MTA) is supported.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;That said with R80.20 or R80.10 and latest MTA take we added AV support INSIDE MTA.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;A class="link-titled" href="https://supportcenter.checkpoint.com/supportcenter/portal?eventSubmit_doGoviewsolutiondetails=&amp;amp;solutionid=sk123174" title="https://supportcenter.checkpoint.com/supportcenter/portal?eventSubmit_doGoviewsolutiondetails=&amp;amp;solutionid=sk123174"&gt;Mail Transfer Agent Update - What&amp;amp;apos;s New&lt;/A&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regards Thomas&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Nov 2018 13:38:07 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Sandblast-and-msg-attachments/m-p/16482#M13562</guid>
      <dc:creator>Thomas_Werner</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-11-19T13:38:07Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Sandblast and .msg attachments</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Sandblast-and-msg-attachments/m-p/16483#M13563</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks&amp;nbsp;for the confirmation Thomas,&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;This is a major improvement in R80.20.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Is there a way to test if&amp;nbsp;or confirm with R&amp;amp;D if .msg attachments&amp;nbsp;are scanned by AV in this configuration?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Nov 2018 15:28:36 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Sandblast-and-msg-attachments/m-p/16483#M13563</guid>
      <dc:creator>Shahar_Grober</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-11-19T15:28:36Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Sandblast and .msg attachments</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Sandblast-and-msg-attachments/m-p/16484#M13564</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Do you already know&amp;nbsp;&lt;A class="" href="https://supportcenter.checkpoint.com/supportcenter/portal?eventSubmit_doGoviewsolutiondetails=&amp;amp;solutionid=sk112240&amp;amp;partition=General&amp;amp;product=Threat"&gt;sk112240: How to add support for new &lt;STRONG&gt;file&lt;/STRONG&gt; &lt;STRONG&gt;types&lt;/STRONG&gt; in Threat Extraction&lt;/A&gt;&amp;nbsp;?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Nov 2018 09:08:58 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Sandblast-and-msg-attachments/m-p/16484#M13564</guid>
      <dc:creator>G_W_Albrecht</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-11-20T09:08:58Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Sandblast and .msg attachments</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Sandblast-and-msg-attachments/m-p/16485#M13565</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi Günther,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;This is an interesting information, but&amp;nbsp;it doesn't address my question.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I just want to know if a simple word doc or pdf attachments are scanned by&amp;nbsp;AV/TE in MTA mode when nested inside a .msg file. this is not related to scrubbing additional file types.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Nov 2018 08:56:49 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Sandblast-and-msg-attachments/m-p/16485#M13565</guid>
      <dc:creator>Shahar_Grober</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-11-21T08:56:49Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Sandblast and .msg attachments</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Sandblast-and-msg-attachments/m-p/16486#M13566</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi Shahar,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;so I learned from our MTA guys that we are already awesome &lt;span class="lia-unicode-emoji" title=":slightly_smiling_face:"&gt;🙂&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Our MTA parses attached .eml and .msg files, extracts and scans links and attachments.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Here a test I did with a GoldenEye ransomware attached to a .eml attached to an email:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;IMG alt="GoldenEye inside .EML - Logcard" class="image-1 jive-image" height="494" src="https://community.checkpoint.com/legacyfs/online/checkpoint/74753_2018-11-21_11h33_17.png" width="502" /&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;IMG alt="This is the scanned email arriving at the recipient with removed GoldenEye attachment" class="image-2 jive-image" height="397" src="https://community.checkpoint.com/legacyfs/online/checkpoint/74754_2018-11-21_11h36_18.png" width="495" /&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I also tested recursive .eml in .eml with GoldenEye attachment successfully:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;IMG alt="Recursive .eml in .eml with GoldenEye removed" class="image-3 jive-image" height="387" src="https://community.checkpoint.com/legacyfs/online/checkpoint/74755_2018-11-21_11h37_17.png" width="523" /&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regards Thomas&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Nov 2018 10:43:45 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Sandblast-and-msg-attachments/m-p/16486#M13566</guid>
      <dc:creator>Thomas_Werner</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-11-21T10:43:45Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Sandblast and .msg attachments</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Sandblast-and-msg-attachments/m-p/16487#M13567</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks Thomas,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I see it is R80.20, should it work with R80.10 as well?&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Nov 2018 12:04:38 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Sandblast-and-msg-attachments/m-p/16487#M13567</guid>
      <dc:creator>Shahar_Grober</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-11-21T12:04:38Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Sandblast and .msg attachments</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Sandblast-and-msg-attachments/m-p/16488#M13568</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;I think as long as you're running the latest engine updates, yes.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Nov 2018 06:06:01 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Sandblast-and-msg-attachments/m-p/16488#M13568</guid>
      <dc:creator>PhoneBoy</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-11-22T06:06:01Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Sandblast and .msg attachments</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Sandblast-and-msg-attachments/m-p/16489#M13569</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P class=""&gt;Thanks Dameon,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P class=""&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P class=""&gt;How can I see which mta version I have?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P class=""&gt;According to SK123174 the version should be in&amp;nbsp;&lt;EM style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"&gt;$FWDIR/conf/mta_ver but I couldn’t find the file on the gateway&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P class=""&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Nov 2018 07:34:06 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Sandblast-and-msg-attachments/m-p/16489#M13569</guid>
      <dc:creator>Shahar_Grober</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-11-22T07:34:06Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Sandblast and .msg attachments</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Sandblast-and-msg-attachments/m-p/16490#M13570</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi Shahar,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;have you installed one of the updated R80.10 MTA takes ?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;You should have similar in R80.10 when accessing the GAiA portal on &lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;A class="jive-link-external-small" href="https://" rel="nofollow"&gt;https://&lt;/A&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;&amp;lt;gwip&amp;gt;:&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;IMG class="image-1 jive-image" src="https://community.checkpoint.com/legacyfs/online/checkpoint/74824_pastedImage_1.png" /&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Afterwards you should get a populated $FWDIR/conf/mta_ver.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regards Thomas&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Nov 2018 08:46:50 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Sandblast-and-msg-attachments/m-p/16490#M13570</guid>
      <dc:creator>Thomas_Werner</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-11-22T08:46:50Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Sandblast and .msg attachments</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Sandblast-and-msg-attachments/m-p/16491#M13571</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi Thomas,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I see that I have an update on my GW (T25 for R80.10), it wasn't there before I activated the MTA&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I have a few questions:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;1. Why it is not updated automatically as with the TE engine?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;2. Why the MTA is not automatically updated&amp;nbsp;when activating the blade?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;2. I guess the MTA update cause downtime? does it requires reboot?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;4. is there a way to see the MTA version from tecli?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks for the helpful information!&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Nov 2018 09:40:26 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Sandblast-and-msg-attachments/m-p/16491#M13571</guid>
      <dc:creator>Shahar_Grober</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-11-22T09:40:26Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Sandblast and .msg attachments</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Sandblast-and-msg-attachments/m-p/16492#M13572</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi Shahar,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P style="color: #333333; background-color: #ffffff; border: 0px; font-size: 14px;"&gt;1. Why it is not updated automatically as with the TE engine?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P style="color: #333333; background-color: #ffffff; border: 0px; font-size: 14px;"&gt;It is because it is a significant infrastructur part where you may want to have control.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P style="color: #333333; background-color: #ffffff; border: 0px; font-size: 14px;"&gt;Currently, also as this updateable MTA mechanism has been introduced only weeks ago, we implemented it as a manual CPUSE update process.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P style="color: #333333; background-color: #ffffff; border: 0px; font-size: 14px;"&gt;It may change in the future.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P style="color: #333333; background-color: #ffffff; border: 0px; font-size: 14px;"&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P style="color: #333333; background-color: #ffffff; border: 0px; font-size: 14px;"&gt;2. Why the MTA is not automatically updated&amp;nbsp;when activating the blade?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P style="color: #333333; background-color: #ffffff; border: 0px; font-size: 14px;"&gt;See 1)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P style="color: #333333; background-color: #ffffff; border: 0px; font-size: 14px;"&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P style="color: #333333; background-color: #ffffff; border: 0px; font-size: 14px;"&gt;2. I guess the MTA update cause downtime? does it requires reboot?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P style="color: #333333; background-color: #ffffff; border: 0px; font-size: 14px;"&gt;No reboot required. I also have not experienced downtime so far.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P style="color: #333333; background-color: #ffffff; border: 0px; font-size: 14px;"&gt;But in production environments with redundant MTAs you may choose to take one offline during the update process.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P style="color: #333333; background-color: #ffffff; border: 0px; font-size: 14px;"&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P style="color: #333333; background-color: #ffffff; border: 0px; font-size: 14px;"&gt;4. is there a way to see the MTA version from tecli?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P style="color: #333333; background-color: #ffffff; border: 0px; font-size: 14px;"&gt;tecli is the Threat Emulation Daemon interface. It is not aware of the MTA other than knowing from which context a file arrived.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P style="color: #333333; background-color: #ffffff; border: 0px; font-size: 14px;"&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Regards Thomas&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Nov 2018 09:46:42 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Sandblast-and-msg-attachments/m-p/16492#M13572</guid>
      <dc:creator>Thomas_Werner</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-11-22T09:46:42Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Sandblast and .msg attachments</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Sandblast-and-msg-attachments/m-p/16493#M13573</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks again Thomas for the information,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I will update the MTA and test the AV functionality.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I think that TECLI&amp;nbsp;is a great tool and should have some reference&amp;nbsp;to the MTA (postfix) since they are working dependently&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Nov 2018 11:23:38 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Sandblast-and-msg-attachments/m-p/16493#M13573</guid>
      <dc:creator>Shahar_Grober</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-11-22T11:23:38Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Sandblast and .msg attachments</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Sandblast-and-msg-attachments/m-p/16494#M13574</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi Thomas,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I'm running TE on a R80.20 gateway (jumbo take 33, MTA take 24).&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Content of the EML attachement is extracted and&amp;nbsp; analysed. However, if it is a MSG attachement (with exactly same content), the attachments are not extracted nor analysed&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;In ted.log in debug mode, nothing about my .MSG tests&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Do I miss something ? Could you please confirm that the MTA extracts content from the .MSG attachement ?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;If so, I will contact TAC.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regards,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Benoit&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Feb 2019 11:56:01 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Sandblast-and-msg-attachments/m-p/16494#M13574</guid>
      <dc:creator>Benoit_Verove</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-02-12T11:56:01Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

