<?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: url filtering categorization problem in Firewall and Security Management</title>
    <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/url-filtering-categorization-problem/m-p/185999#M34222</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;i don't have HTTPS Inspection enabled but HTTPS Categorization it is.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I think i solved the problem.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;in reality the user tries to join a website other than "backupsec.com", however he has the same ip because he is hosted on a cluster which shares his ip for several websites. As the "backupsec.com" domain is registered as an object in the console, a DNS resolution is made by the firewall and it gives as result the domain that matches the ip encountered. This makes it a false positive.&lt;BR /&gt;To summarize, the user has never tried to join "backupsec.com" but the firewall matches the connection because the ip is identical because it is shared.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;at least that's what I deduce after analysis&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 10 Jul 2023 06:11:12 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>yannick_scorza</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2023-07-10T06:11:12Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>url filtering categorization problem</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/url-filtering-categorization-problem/m-p/185702#M34147</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hello,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I'm in R81.10&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;currently I have a rule in source "any" and destination "any" which matches url-category "spyware/malware" , action "drop" and extended log.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;below this rule I have another old rule that matches manually entered domains, source "any", destination: object group with many domains objets inside,&amp;nbsp; action "drop" and extended logs&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The objective of the creation of the first rule is to delete the rule below and its 300 objects&amp;nbsp;and only rely on the URL categories for drop.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;the problem is that I see that some domains are detected by the second rule and not by the first. when I check one of these domains on &lt;A href="https://urlcat.checkpoint.com/urlcat/main.htm" target="_blank"&gt;https://urlcat.checkpoint.com/urlcat/main.htm&lt;/A&gt; I note that the domain is considered as spyware and should therefore be detected by the first rule.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;However, the first rule works. some other domains considered spyware are well detected, a session log is present and defines the risk and the category.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I specify that I have defined the url category mentioned above in "any protocol" in general parameters of the category&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;exemple for domain "backupsec.com" :&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;it is considered as Spyware / Malicious Sites, General and High Risk on Checkpoint website&amp;nbsp;but it still goes through the second rule because it exists as a "domain" object.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;the connection log of the second rule indicates the destination ip and at the very bottom of the log detail it is indicated that this refers to the domain backupsec.com&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Since the firewall detects the domain and makes the ip relation, I do not understand why, given that this domain is considered as spyware it is not detected by the first rule.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;thanks for your help&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Jul 2023 17:48:15 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/url-filtering-categorization-problem/m-p/185702#M34147</guid>
      <dc:creator>yannick_scorza</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2023-07-05T17:48:15Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: url filtering categorization problem</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/url-filtering-categorization-problem/m-p/185959#M34206</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Do you have HTTPS Inspection enabled? If not, TLS connections will not be categorized.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 08 Jul 2023 08:36:28 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/url-filtering-categorization-problem/m-p/185959#M34206</guid>
      <dc:creator>_Val_</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2023-07-08T08:36:28Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: url filtering categorization problem</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/url-filtering-categorization-problem/m-p/185999#M34222</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;i don't have HTTPS Inspection enabled but HTTPS Categorization it is.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I think i solved the problem.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;in reality the user tries to join a website other than "backupsec.com", however he has the same ip because he is hosted on a cluster which shares his ip for several websites. As the "backupsec.com" domain is registered as an object in the console, a DNS resolution is made by the firewall and it gives as result the domain that matches the ip encountered. This makes it a false positive.&lt;BR /&gt;To summarize, the user has never tried to join "backupsec.com" but the firewall matches the connection because the ip is identical because it is shared.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;at least that's what I deduce after analysis&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Jul 2023 06:11:12 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/url-filtering-categorization-problem/m-p/185999#M34222</guid>
      <dc:creator>yannick_scorza</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2023-07-10T06:11:12Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

