<?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: UDP mapping (on R80.20) in General Topics</title>
    <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/UDP-mapping-on-R80-20/m-p/9582#M1291</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;There are some side effects if you do NAT on the gateway itself.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The port mapping does not interfere with other traffic.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;But it is also is a matter of taste I guess.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The point was more about documenting HOW to do it.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 28 Nov 2018 09:02:40 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Hugo_vd_Kooij</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2018-11-28T09:02:40Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>UDP mapping (on R80.20)</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/UDP-mapping-on-R80-20/m-p/9579#M1288</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Silly me. I tried to find the answer in Secure Knowledge or in some existing predefined service. But I could not find the answer.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I want to map a port on the firewall to a port on another server. (aka: my honeypot)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;It's easy to clone http_mapped and do this for TCP port. But I can't find an example for UDP.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;So I did the next best thing and did a trial-and-error attempt:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;OL style="padding: 0px 0px 0px 30px;"&gt;&lt;LI style="margin: 0.2em 0px;"&gt;Clone http_mapped to my own service HoneyPot_SIP&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI style="margin: 0.2em 0px;"&gt;General&lt;OL style="padding: 0px 0px 0px 30px;"&gt;&lt;LI style="margin: 0.2em 0px;"&gt;Match By : Change from IP Protocol 6 to IP protocol &lt;STRONG&gt;17&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;/OL&gt;&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI style="margin: 0.2em 0px;"&gt;Advanced&lt;OL style="padding: 0px 0px 0px 30px;"&gt;&lt;LI style="margin: 0.2em 0px;"&gt;Match: Change tcp to &lt;STRONG&gt;udp&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI style="margin: 0.2em 0px;"&gt;Match: Change dport=80 to dport=&lt;STRONG&gt;5060&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI style="margin: 0.2em 0px;"&gt;Action: Change 80 to &lt;STRONG&gt;5060&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI style="margin: 0.2em 0px;"&gt;Action: Change 0.0.0.0 to my &lt;EM&gt;HoneyPot IP address&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;/OL&gt;&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI style="margin: 0.2em 0px;"&gt;Publish and install policy&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;/OL&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;So far it seems work just fine. Need to do some real capturing to see it the translate actually works.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Nov 2018 12:18:49 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/UDP-mapping-on-R80-20/m-p/9579#M1288</guid>
      <dc:creator>Hugo_vd_Kooij</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-11-27T12:18:49Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: UDP mapping (on R80.20)</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/UDP-mapping-on-R80-20/m-p/9580#M1289</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Curious why you wouldn’t use regular NAT rules for this (which is what I do).&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Nov 2018 20:46:59 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/UDP-mapping-on-R80-20/m-p/9580#M1289</guid>
      <dc:creator>PhoneBoy</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-11-27T20:46:59Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: UDP mapping (on R80.20)</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/UDP-mapping-on-R80-20/m-p/9581#M1290</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;I remember having done this a long time ago as well. There was some advantage, NAT didn't provide back then.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;However, keep in mind that any &lt;A _jive_internal="true" href="https://community.checkpoint.com/thread/8364-httpmapped-usage"&gt;_mapped service&amp;nbsp;won't be accelerated&lt;/A&gt;&amp;nbsp;by SecureXL as mentioned by &lt;A _jive_internal="true" href="https://community.checkpoint.com/people/d401179d-0d5b-369d-a0f2-387c3ef54533"&gt;Tim&lt;/A&gt;.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Nov 2018 21:05:14 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/UDP-mapping-on-R80-20/m-p/9581#M1290</guid>
      <dc:creator>Danny</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-11-27T21:05:14Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: UDP mapping (on R80.20)</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/UDP-mapping-on-R80-20/m-p/9582#M1291</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;There are some side effects if you do NAT on the gateway itself.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The port mapping does not interfere with other traffic.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;But it is also is a matter of taste I guess.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The point was more about documenting HOW to do it.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Nov 2018 09:02:40 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/UDP-mapping-on-R80-20/m-p/9582#M1291</guid>
      <dc:creator>Hugo_vd_Kooij</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-11-28T09:02:40Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

