<?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 Using unique identifiers for applications in a security rule by studying the existing traffic flow in Firewall and Security Management</title>
    <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Using-unique-identifiers-for-applications-in-a-security-rule-by/m-p/220809#M42280</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;My suggestion is to using unique identifiers for applications in a security rule by studying the existing traffic flow and to not use service-IDs in a security rule. If the existing rules can show and/or suggest what applications are using that rule, then the firewall administrator can replace the service-IDs with a particular application to make the traffic more restrictive and secure.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 15 Jul 2024 15:21:11 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>ibhatti</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2024-07-15T15:21:11Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Using unique identifiers for applications in a security rule by studying the existing traffic flow</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Using-unique-identifiers-for-applications-in-a-security-rule-by/m-p/220809#M42280</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;My suggestion is to using unique identifiers for applications in a security rule by studying the existing traffic flow and to not use service-IDs in a security rule. If the existing rules can show and/or suggest what applications are using that rule, then the firewall administrator can replace the service-IDs with a particular application to make the traffic more restrictive and secure.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 15 Jul 2024 15:21:11 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Using-unique-identifiers-for-applications-in-a-security-rule-by/m-p/220809#M42280</guid>
      <dc:creator>ibhatti</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2024-07-15T15:21:11Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Using unique identifiers for applications in a security rule by studying the existing traffic fl</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Using-unique-identifiers-for-applications-in-a-security-rule-by/m-p/220859#M42281</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;You posted this in a submission space for a content.&lt;BR /&gt;Meanwhile, this sounds like a &lt;A href="https://usercenter.checkpoint.com/ucapps/rfe/" target="_blank"&gt;Request for Enhancement&lt;/A&gt;.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 15 Jul 2024 20:48:59 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Using-unique-identifiers-for-applications-in-a-security-rule-by/m-p/220859#M42281</guid>
      <dc:creator>PhoneBoy</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2024-07-15T20:48:59Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Using unique identifiers for applications in a security rule by studying the existing traffic fl</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Using-unique-identifiers-for-applications-in-a-security-rule-by/m-p/220886#M42292</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;If the rule is in a layer that is enabled for access control/URLF, you can do this already by setting the logging to Detailed or Extended logging.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Jul 2024 05:10:34 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Using-unique-identifiers-for-applications-in-a-security-rule-by/m-p/220886#M42292</guid>
      <dc:creator>emmap</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2024-07-16T05:10:34Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

