<?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: Check Point Appliance is convinced its unlikely to be replaced ... a Freudian slip .. but how kn in Firewall and Security Management</title>
    <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Check-Point-Appliance-is-convinced-its-unlikely-to-be-replaced-a/m-p/142143#M24699</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;It may seem funny to you, but you do have rad issues, and I would sincerely recommend opening a TAC case at once.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 22 Feb 2022 09:49:45 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>_Val_</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2022-02-22T09:49:45Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Check Point Appliance is convinced its unlikely to be replaced ... a Freudian slip .. but how knows?</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Check-Point-Appliance-is-convinced-its-unlikely-to-be-replaced-a/m-p/142141#M24698</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hello Check Mates,&amp;nbsp;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;some stranges message appear on this machine, also a bit funny. but was does it mean?&lt;BR /&gt;another RAD issue ...&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;EM&gt;but most funny to see is Check Points funny naming "(&lt;STRONG&gt;flow reached! consider removing CP_UNLIKELY)"&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;EM&gt;so they are pretty convinced not be removed in the future?&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;so far we do not feel any impact or symptoms&amp;nbsp;&lt;BR /&gt;but the logs are filling up quite rapidly.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;/var/log/messages&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Feb 22 09:47:30 2022 XXXXXXXXXXXkernel: [fw4_0];[10.20.46.82:33146 -&amp;gt; 10.90.214.3:80] [ERROR]: malware_res_rep_rad_query: rad_kernel_malware_request_prepare() failed (flow reached! consider removing CP_UNLIKELY)&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Feb 22 09:47:35 2022 XXXXXXXXXXXkernel: [fw4_0];[10.20.46.82:45906 -&amp;gt; 10.90.214.4:80] [ERROR]: rad_kernel_malware_request_prepare: invalid normalized_url with prefix slash. normalized_url is /sdktunnel, len=10&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Feb 22 09:47:35 2022 XXXXXXXXXXXkernel: [fw4_0];[10.20.46.82:45906 -&amp;gt; 10.90.214.4:80] [ERROR]: malware_res_rep_rad_query: rad_kernel_malware_request_prepare() failed (flow reached! consider removing CP_UNLIKELY)&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Feb 22 09:47:46 2022 XXXXXXXXXXXkernel: [fw4_0];[10.20.46.82:33282 -&amp;gt; 10.90.214.3:80] [ERROR]: rad_kernel_malware_request_prepare: invalid normalized_url with prefix slash. normalized_url is /sdktunnel, len=10&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Feb 22 09:47:46 2022 XXXXXXXXXXXkernel: [fw4_0];[10.20.46.82:33282 -&amp;gt; 10.90.214.3:80] [ERROR]: malware_res_rep_rad_query: rad_kernel_malware_request_prepare() failed (flow reached! consider removing CP_UNLIKELY)&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;has anybody seen this before and ha some luck in investigating it?&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;perhaps its nothing serious.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;best regards&lt;BR /&gt;Thomas&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Feb 2022 09:05:25 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Check-Point-Appliance-is-convinced-its-unlikely-to-be-replaced-a/m-p/142141#M24698</guid>
      <dc:creator>Thomas_Eichelbu</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2022-02-22T09:05:25Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Check Point Appliance is convinced its unlikely to be replaced ... a Freudian slip .. but how kn</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Check-Point-Appliance-is-convinced-its-unlikely-to-be-replaced-a/m-p/142143#M24699</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;It may seem funny to you, but you do have rad issues, and I would sincerely recommend opening a TAC case at once.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Feb 2022 09:49:45 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Check-Point-Appliance-is-convinced-its-unlikely-to-be-replaced-a/m-p/142143#M24699</guid>
      <dc:creator>_Val_</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2022-02-22T09:49:45Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Check Point Appliance is convinced its unlikely to be replaced ... a Freudian slip .. but how kn</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Check-Point-Appliance-is-convinced-its-unlikely-to-be-replaced-a/m-p/142145#M24700</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Well, not so sure ...&lt;BR /&gt;since 7 days i got only about 15 RAD related messages in Smartlog on this specific machine.&lt;BR /&gt;they are all like:&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;EM&gt;"Failed to fetch Check Point resources. Timeout was reached, check /opt/CPsuite-R81/fw1/log/rad_events/Errors/flow_16976_651350 For more details"&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;ok the uptime is only 2h ...&amp;nbsp;&lt;BR /&gt;i never found any good explanation what this values are all about?&lt;BR /&gt;when is it bad, what is normal, when is a threashold reached?&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;span class="lia-inline-image-display-wrapper lia-image-align-inline" image-alt="RAD.PNG" style="width: 824px;"&gt;&lt;img src="https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/image/serverpage/image-id/15466iD8AE325CD05A38CD/image-size/large?v=v2&amp;amp;px=999" role="button" title="RAD.PNG" alt="RAD.PNG" /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;DIV id="tinyMceEditor_b6d1739359497bThomas_Eichelbu_0" class="mceNonEditable lia-copypaste-placeholder"&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/DIV&gt;
&lt;P&gt;all the cache sizes in this enviroment for APPI/URL and AV/ABot have been increased already ...&lt;BR /&gt;still RAD remains a mistery. (at least for me)&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Feb 2022 10:33:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Check-Point-Appliance-is-convinced-its-unlikely-to-be-replaced-a/m-p/142145#M24700</guid>
      <dc:creator>Thomas_Eichelbu</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2022-02-22T10:33:00Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Check Point Appliance is convinced its unlikely to be replaced ... a Freudian slip .. but how kn</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Check-Point-Appliance-is-convinced-its-unlikely-to-be-replaced-a/m-p/142146#M24701</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Well,&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;i see only internal clients in this logs, never any external IP´s&amp;nbsp;&lt;BR /&gt;perhaps RAD has issues with categorizing internal resources?&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Feb 2022 10:42:13 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Check-Point-Appliance-is-convinced-its-unlikely-to-be-replaced-a/m-p/142146#M24701</guid>
      <dc:creator>Thomas_Eichelbu</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2022-02-22T10:42:13Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Check Point Appliance is convinced its unlikely to be replaced ... a Freudian slip .. but how kn</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Check-Point-Appliance-is-convinced-its-unlikely-to-be-replaced-a/m-p/151328#M24702</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;We are seeing the same messages, but in our case related with DNS traffic to 8.8.8.8, did you reach any conclussion about this messages?&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Jun 2022 05:22:07 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Check-Point-Appliance-is-convinced-its-unlikely-to-be-replaced-a/m-p/151328#M24702</guid>
      <dc:creator>Diego_dg</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2022-06-21T05:22:07Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Check Point Appliance is convinced its unlikely to be replaced ... a Freudian slip .. but how kn</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Check-Point-Appliance-is-convinced-its-unlikely-to-be-replaced-a/m-p/151357#M24705</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hello.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;well i still see them.&lt;BR /&gt;R81 + Take 58&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;messages.9:Jun 15 07:53:37 2022 XXXXXXXXXXX kernel: [fw4_7];[192.168.200.197:44278 -&amp;gt; 8.8.8.8:53] [ERROR]: malware_res_rep_classify_ex: invalid params: _host ffffc901e09618b8, _host_len 0, _conn_data ffff880418aaabb8, _action ffff880418aaac9c (flow reached! consider removing CP_UNLIKELY)&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;messages.9:Jun 15 07:53:40 2022 XXXXXXXXXXX kernel: [fw4_25];[192.168.200.197:42339 -&amp;gt; 8.8.8.8:53] [ERROR]: malware_res_rep_classify_ex: invalid params: _host ffffc90041a8d8b8, _host_len 0, _conn_data ffff88043c676bb8, _action ffff88043c676c9c (flow reached! consider removing CP_UNLIKELY&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;also to Google ...&lt;BR /&gt;iam no really aware of any impact due this RAD issues ...&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;but this logs are not listed here:&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;/opt/CPsuite-R81/fw1/log/rad_events/&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;so since nobody really complains ... i hope its still informational ... perhaps i will create a TAC Case to get some more information about it ...&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Jun 2022 10:45:06 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Check-Point-Appliance-is-convinced-its-unlikely-to-be-replaced-a/m-p/151357#M24705</guid>
      <dc:creator>Thomas_Eichelbu</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2022-06-21T10:45:06Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Check Point Appliance is convinced its unlikely to be replaced ... a Freudian slip .. but how kn</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Check-Point-Appliance-is-convinced-its-unlikely-to-be-replaced-a/m-p/151359#M24707</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I agree with you, those messages are a bit funny, to me anyway : - ). But, on a serious note, did you ever end up opening a TAC case for this?&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Jun 2022 11:57:16 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Check-Point-Appliance-is-convinced-its-unlikely-to-be-replaced-a/m-p/151359#M24707</guid>
      <dc:creator>the_rock</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2022-06-21T11:57:16Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Check Point Appliance is convinced its unlikely to be replaced ... a Freudian slip .. but how kn</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Check-Point-Appliance-is-convinced-its-unlikely-to-be-replaced-a/m-p/151362#M24708</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I have not made any case yet ...&lt;BR /&gt;i have so many other cases running, when all high prio cases are finished i will care about this issue ...&lt;BR /&gt;i will publish the TAC´s answer then on Check Mates!&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Jun 2022 12:57:26 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Check-Point-Appliance-is-convinced-its-unlikely-to-be-replaced-a/m-p/151362#M24708</guid>
      <dc:creator>Thomas_Eichelbu</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2022-06-21T12:57:26Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Check Point Appliance is convinced its unlikely to be replaced ... a Freudian slip .. but how kn</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Check-Point-Appliance-is-convinced-its-unlikely-to-be-replaced-a/m-p/151364#M24709</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I hear ya brother, I feel your "pain" : - ). Please let us know how it goes.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Jun 2022 13:12:17 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Check-Point-Appliance-is-convinced-its-unlikely-to-be-replaced-a/m-p/151364#M24709</guid>
      <dc:creator>the_rock</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2022-06-21T13:12:17Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Check Point Appliance is convinced its unlikely to be replaced ... a Freudian slip .. but how kn</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Check-Point-Appliance-is-convinced-its-unlikely-to-be-replaced-a/m-p/151995#M25087</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hello,&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;i have created a TAC case now ...&amp;nbsp;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;at the moment i see the most logs for DNS ...&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;messages.1:Jun 28 09:19:33 2022 XXXXXXXXXX kernel: [fw4_4];[&lt;STRONG&gt;192.168.192.41:43382 -&amp;gt; 8.8.8.8:53&lt;/STRONG&gt;] [ERROR]: malware_res_rep_classify_ex: invalid params: _host ffffc9024db01ab0, _host_len 0, _conn_data ffff8804184cebb8, _action ffff8804184cec9c (flow reached! consider removing CP_UNLIKELY)&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;or this.&lt;BR /&gt;messages.7:Jun 23 14:45:36 2022 XXXXXXXXXX&amp;nbsp; kernel: [fw4_6];[10.XX.XX.66:44704 -&amp;gt; 10.XX.XX:XX:53] [ERROR]: malware_res_rep_rad_query: rad_kernel_malware_request_prepare() failed (flow reached! consider removing CP_UNLIKELY)&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;so lets see what we find out here!&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Jun 2022 09:17:09 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Check-Point-Appliance-is-convinced-its-unlikely-to-be-replaced-a/m-p/151995#M25087</guid>
      <dc:creator>Thomas_Eichelbu</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2022-06-29T09:17:09Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Check Point Appliance is convinced its unlikely to be replaced ... a Freudian slip .. but how kn</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Check-Point-Appliance-is-convinced-its-unlikely-to-be-replaced-a/m-p/153736#M25866</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hello again,&amp;nbsp;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;short update, CP TAC asked us to change the following:&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;the RAD magic command, i call it the Swiss Army Knife of RAD.&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;EM&gt;"ckp_regedit -a SOFTWARE\\CheckPoint\\FW1\\$(cpprod_util CPPROD_GetCurrentVersion FW1) RAD_QUERIES_NUMBER_PER_CONNECTION 400"&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;i asked what number is the best 40, 400, 4000 or what? TAC said, its trial and error just increase the value &lt;span class="lia-unicode-emoji" title=":disappointed_face:"&gt;😞&lt;/span&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;/STRONG&gt;the higher the value, the more memory is sucked up by the FW.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;to check with:&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;EM&gt;grep --color -C 1 RAD_QUERIES_NUMBER_PER_CONNECTION $CPDIR/registry/HKLM_registry.data&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;EM&gt;:APPIUFEnabled (1)&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;EM&gt;:RAD_QUERIES_NUMBER_PER_CONNECTION (400)&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;EM&gt;:IsFwdDebugTurnedOn (0)&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;to make it running, reboot or "&lt;EM&gt;rad_admin stop" and "rad_admin start"&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;If the issue persists:&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;EM&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Edit $FWDIR/conf/rad_conf.C&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;:amws_service_check_seconds (1800) -&amp;gt; increase this to 3600. **RND recommends keeping this to 3600 at all times if Anti-Virus and Anti-bot are being used.***&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;:max_pc_in_reply (0) -&amp;gt; Increase to 100 **Same note as above**&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;GUIDBEdit &amp;gt; Other &amp;gt; rad_services &amp;gt; malware_rad_service &amp;gt; double current cache size&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;EM&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;If in &lt;BR /&gt;# cat $FWDIR/conf/rad_scheme.C | grep 8.0 =&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;EM&gt;=&lt;BR /&gt;:const ("/Malware/malware/8.0?resource=")&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;then please change it from 8.0 to 6.0 and let me know if there's a change in the behavi&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;EM&gt;or.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;If the messages reduce in quantity but still appear sometimes:&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;Increase to&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;EM&gt;:&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;EM&gt;$FWDIR/conf/rad_conf.C&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;EM&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;:amws_service_check_seconds (7200)&lt;BR /&gt;:max_pc_in_reply (200)&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;EM&gt;my config:&lt;BR /&gt;cat $FWDIR/conf/rad_conf.C&lt;BR /&gt;(&lt;BR /&gt;:urlfs_service_check_seconds (7200)&lt;BR /&gt;:amws_service_check_seconds (1800)&lt;BR /&gt;:cpu_cores_as_number_of_threads (false)&lt;BR /&gt;:number_of_threads (0)&lt;BR /&gt;:threads_to_cores_ratio (0.334)&lt;BR /&gt;:minimal_resources_usage_ratio (0.2)&lt;BR /&gt;:number_of_threads_fast_response (0)&lt;BR /&gt;:number_of_threads_slow_response (0)&lt;BR /&gt;:queue_max_capacity (2000)&lt;BR /&gt;:debug_traffic (false)&lt;BR /&gt;:use_dns_cache (true)&lt;BR /&gt;:dns_cache_timeout_sec (2)&lt;BR /&gt;:use_ssl_cache (true)&lt;BR /&gt;:cert_file_name ("ca-bundle.crt")&lt;BR /&gt;:cert_type ("CRT")&lt;BR /&gt;:ssl_version ("TLSv1_0")&lt;BR /&gt;:ciphers ("TLSv1")&lt;BR /&gt;:autodebug (true)&lt;BR /&gt;:timeout_events (false)&lt;BR /&gt;:normal_flow_events (false)&lt;BR /&gt;:log_timeouts (false)&lt;BR /&gt;:log_errors (true)&lt;BR /&gt;:number_of_reports (512)&lt;BR /&gt;:max_repository_multiplier (20)&lt;BR /&gt;:flow_timeout (6)&lt;BR /&gt;:excessive_flow_timeout (120)&lt;BR /&gt;:transfer_timeout_sec (15)&lt;BR /&gt;:max_flows (1000)&lt;BR /&gt;:max_pc_in_reply (0)&lt;BR /&gt;:retry_mechanism_on (true)&lt;BR /&gt;:max_retries (25)&lt;BR /&gt;:retry_peroid_mins (15)&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;iam sorry to say, it has not worked out so far.&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;at the moment we focus on DNS settings, as we know the clients we saw in the logs use different DNS Servers then the firewall.&lt;BR /&gt;so lets see ...&lt;EM&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 25 Jul 2022 10:08:17 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Check-Point-Appliance-is-convinced-its-unlikely-to-be-replaced-a/m-p/153736#M25866</guid>
      <dc:creator>Thomas_Eichelbu</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2022-07-25T10:08:17Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Check Point Appliance is convinced its unlikely to be replaced ... a Freudian slip .. but how kn</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Check-Point-Appliance-is-convinced-its-unlikely-to-be-replaced-a/m-p/154438#M26166</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hello,&amp;nbsp;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;"bypass_reverse_dns_rad_request" is the magic command and must be added to $FWDIR/conf/rad_conf.C&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Check Point TAC wrote ...&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;bypass_reverse_dns_rad_request &lt;/STRONG&gt;is a global parameter, when this is enabled the RAD process will not handle reverse DNS requests(i.e. Have the suffix of .ip6.arpa or .in-addr.arpa).&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;In order to enable it please follow the procedure below:&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;1) &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; Backup the current rad configuration file:&lt;BR /&gt;# cp $FWDIR/conf/rad_conf.C $FWDIR/conf/rad_conf.C.BACKUP&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;2) &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; Edit the configuration file and make the following changes:&lt;BR /&gt;# vi $FWDIR/conf/rad_conf.C&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;Add the following line (at the end):&lt;BR /&gt;&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;:bypass_reverse_dns_rad_request (1)&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;3) &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; Exit the file and save the changes&lt;BR /&gt;4) &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; Restart the rad process:&lt;BR /&gt;# rad_admin restart&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;questions remain ...&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;i have to make this settings on 160 firewalls ... how?&amp;nbsp;&lt;BR /&gt;putting the&amp;nbsp;$FWDIR/conf/rad_conf.C to fwrl.conf ???&amp;nbsp;&lt;BR /&gt;does it get overwritten during updates?&lt;BR /&gt;pro/cons of this setting?&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;and more important does it help?&lt;BR /&gt;i will keep you posted!&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Aug 2022 11:28:13 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Check-Point-Appliance-is-convinced-its-unlikely-to-be-replaced-a/m-p/154438#M26166</guid>
      <dc:creator>Thomas_Eichelbu</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2022-08-03T11:28:13Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Check Point Appliance is convinced its unlikely to be replaced ... a Freudian slip .. but how kn</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Check-Point-Appliance-is-convinced-its-unlikely-to-be-replaced-a/m-p/203613#M38371</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;We seem to be having a similar issue. Did implementing&amp;nbsp;&lt;STRONG&gt;bypass_reverse_dns_rad_request&lt;/STRONG&gt;&amp;nbsp;in&amp;nbsp;&lt;STRONG&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;$FWDIR/conf/rad_conf.C&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt; help resolve the issue in the long-term? Thanks for your assistance.&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Jan 2024 09:42:40 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Check-Point-Appliance-is-convinced-its-unlikely-to-be-replaced-a/m-p/203613#M38371</guid>
      <dc:creator>farrugial</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2024-01-19T09:42:40Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

