<?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: Protocol violation sig_id in General Topics</title>
    <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/Protocol-violation-sig-id/m-p/116390#M21662</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi Checkpoint advised me to use sk114917 ....worked for me&amp;nbsp;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Firewall - Protocol violation detected with protocol (SMTP) .....etc..etc....ect.....&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 20 Apr 2021 08:52:32 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Jurgen</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2021-04-20T08:52:32Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Protocol violation sig_id</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/Protocol-violation-sig-id/m-p/66149#M13534</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Good Morning,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I'm seeing some random protocol violation messages in one of my customer's logs and I'm trying to figure out what is going on.&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; This particular message is&amp;nbsp;&lt;FONT face="courier new,courier"&gt;Firewall - Protocol violation detected with protocol:(NTP-UDP), matched protocol sig_id:(9), violation sig_id:(12). (500)&lt;/FONT&gt;.&amp;nbsp; Is there a place to see what violation sig_id:12 or matched protocol sig_id:9 is referring to?&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;This is not in relation to something not working correctly, just a review of log ALERTS and I want to be able to explain it or eliminate it.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks,&lt;BR /&gt;Paul&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Oct 2019 11:52:49 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/Protocol-violation-sig-id/m-p/66149#M13534</guid>
      <dc:creator>Paul_Warnagiris</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-10-29T11:52:49Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Protocol violation sig_id</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/Protocol-violation-sig-id/m-p/66152#M13535</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;The error message Firewall - Protocol violation detected with protocol:(NTP-UDP) points to an&amp;nbsp;access&amp;nbsp;rule with that predefined service used. &lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;sig_id&amp;nbsp;seems not to be specific for the service, see&amp;nbsp;sk162012&amp;nbsp;&lt;/SPAN&gt;After upgrading Security Gateway from R77.30 to R80.20, ftp-traffic from some Linux-FTP-clients is blocked:&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;DIV id="solutionDetailsDiv" class="cp_link_block"&gt;
&lt;DIV class="solutionEditableField"&gt;
&lt;UL&gt;
&lt;LI&gt;After upgrading Security Gateway from R77.30 to R80.20, ftp-traffic from some Linux-FTP-clients is blocked.&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;LI&gt;Log entry may show - "Protocol violation detected with protocol:(FTP), matched protocol sig_id:(9), violation sig_id:(20)"&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;/UL&gt;
&lt;/DIV&gt;
&lt;/DIV&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Oct 2019 12:07:26 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/Protocol-violation-sig-id/m-p/66152#M13535</guid>
      <dc:creator>G_W_Albrecht</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-10-29T12:07:26Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Protocol violation sig_id</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/Protocol-violation-sig-id/m-p/66154#M13537</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;More to log fields read here:&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;A href="https://supportcenter.checkpoint.com/supportcenter/portal?eventSubmit_doGoviewsolutiondetails=&amp;amp;solutionid=sk144192&amp;amp;partition=General&amp;amp;product=SmartLog," target="_self"&gt;SK&lt;SPAN&gt;144192 -&amp;nbsp;&lt;/SPAN&gt;Log Fields Description&lt;/A&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;The signatures are used by the PSL. Unfortunately there is no list for the protocols here.&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;matched protocol sig_id:(9)&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;= FTP&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;SPAN style="font-family: inherit;"&gt;violation sig_id:(12)&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;= ?&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;For PSL more read here:&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;&lt;A href="https://community.checkpoint.com/docs/DOC-3073-r80x-security-gateway-architecture-content-inspection" target="_blank" rel="noopener"&gt;R80.x - Security Gateway Architecture (Content Inspection)&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Oct 2019 12:27:29 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/Protocol-violation-sig-id/m-p/66154#M13537</guid>
      <dc:creator>HeikoAnkenbrand</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-10-29T12:27:29Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Protocol violation sig_id</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/Protocol-violation-sig-id/m-p/66165#M13543</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I saw this SK you mention when I was searching.&amp;nbsp; There is not really anything that is breaking per se.&amp;nbsp; Its just making a mess of the logs because there are a bunch of "alerts."&amp;nbsp; In fact they are not even drops.&amp;nbsp; We just have a routine that reports on all of the "alerts" and then I have to sift through these protocol violations.&amp;nbsp; Do you know how to fix it?&amp;nbsp; Is it something I have to do in the rulebase?&amp;nbsp; OR is there a way to stop alerting on it since they are allows?&amp;nbsp; I just don't want to stop alerting on something that is worthwhile in order to cut down on noise.&amp;nbsp; I could easily just not log everything and that would get rid of the noise&amp;nbsp;&lt;span class="lia-unicode-emoji" title=":face_with_rolling_eyes:"&gt;🙄&lt;/span&gt;&amp;nbsp; For the most part its UDP4500 and 500 as well as 443/128/25, etc, but then if I eliminate them from the log view there are a bunch of random HO ports with "protocol unknown" in the protocol field.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;span class="lia-inline-image-display-wrapper lia-image-align-inline" image-alt="Picture1.png" style="width: 999px;"&gt;&lt;img src="https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/image/serverpage/image-id/2906i4B75607B20947BB1/image-size/large?v=v2&amp;amp;px=999" role="button" title="Picture1.png" alt="Picture1.png" /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Oct 2019 14:36:17 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/Protocol-violation-sig-id/m-p/66165#M13543</guid>
      <dc:creator>Paul_Warnagiris</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-10-29T14:36:17Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Protocol violation sig_id</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/Protocol-violation-sig-id/m-p/101202#M19631</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I see something similiar:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Firewall - Protocol violation detected with protocol:(DNS-UDP), matched protocol sig_id:(1), violation sig_id:(12). (500)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The traffic is allowed but is alerting.&amp;nbsp; If this is not cause for concern how can we stop this from happening?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I could not find anything on Support site for this.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Nov 2020 11:47:36 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/Protocol-violation-sig-id/m-p/101202#M19631</guid>
      <dc:creator>genisis__</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-11-05T11:47:36Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Protocol violation sig_id</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/Protocol-violation-sig-id/m-p/109528#M20782</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hello,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;did you found a workaround for this messages? We have the same problem with UDP 500. Voice Over WIFI seems to use this port.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Best regards,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Jan&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2021 07:39:46 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/Protocol-violation-sig-id/m-p/109528#M20782</guid>
      <dc:creator>Jan_Kleinhans</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2021-02-02T07:39:46Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Protocol violation sig_id</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/Protocol-violation-sig-id/m-p/109612#M20792</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I have not found a way to easily eliminate the noise unless you filter out through a repot in SmartEvent.&amp;nbsp; Or filter out in the logs view, but as I stated you may then filter out pertinent information that you want to see.&amp;nbsp; As for logs themselves though its very annoying and the premium that it costs with exponential amount of logs in R80 makes it a challenge.&amp;nbsp; If anyone comes up with a work around please add to the thread.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2021 22:06:12 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/Protocol-violation-sig-id/m-p/109612#M20792</guid>
      <dc:creator>Paul_Warnagiris</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2021-02-02T22:06:12Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Protocol violation sig_id</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/Protocol-violation-sig-id/m-p/109644#M20798</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Not found a way either, it would be useful if Checkpoint can offer a solution for this.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Feb 2021 09:01:50 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/Protocol-violation-sig-id/m-p/109644#M20798</guid>
      <dc:creator>genisis__</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2021-02-03T09:01:50Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Protocol violation sig_id</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/Protocol-violation-sig-id/m-p/109646#M20799</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I can see that&amp;nbsp;&lt;SPAN&gt;sk81320 related change helps resolving this issue. If you are unsure what to do, please open a case with TAC&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Feb 2021 09:34:37 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/Protocol-violation-sig-id/m-p/109646#M20799</guid>
      <dc:creator>_Val_</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2021-02-03T09:34:37Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Protocol violation sig_id</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/Protocol-violation-sig-id/m-p/116390#M21662</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi Checkpoint advised me to use sk114917 ....worked for me&amp;nbsp;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Firewall - Protocol violation detected with protocol (SMTP) .....etc..etc....ect.....&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Apr 2021 08:52:32 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/Protocol-violation-sig-id/m-p/116390#M21662</guid>
      <dc:creator>Jurgen</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2021-04-20T08:52:32Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

