<?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: how to set an X-Frame-Options response header to avoid clickjacking vulnerability, on Checkpoint R77.30 in General Topics</title>
    <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/how-to-set-an-X-Frame-Options-response-header-to-avoid/m-p/4315#M364</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Best practice is to have a stealth rule blocking all traffic to the firewall, even from internal networks.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The fact this port is showing up at all suggests you either don't have this rule, it is misconfigured, or you are using Client Authentication, which is a legacy feature.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Unless you are using Client Authentication, there's no reason this port should be accessed at all.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;If you are using Client Authentication,&amp;nbsp;I strongly encourage you to move to Identity Awareness.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 24 Jul 2017 12:56:21 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>PhoneBoy</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2017-07-24T12:56:21Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>how to set an X-Frame-Options response header to avoid clickjacking vulnerability, on Checkpoint R77.30</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/how-to-set-an-X-Frame-Options-response-header-to-avoid/m-p/4314#M363</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;900/tcp port is open in Checkpoint R77.30 which is running &lt;STRONG&gt;omginitialrefs?&lt;/STRONG&gt; service. This makes it vulnerable to clickjacking. Kindly help me with this.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 24 Jul 2017 10:18:19 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/how-to-set-an-X-Frame-Options-response-header-to-avoid/m-p/4314#M363</guid>
      <dc:creator>nivesh_singh</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-07-24T10:18:19Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: how to set an X-Frame-Options response header to avoid clickjacking vulnerability, on Checkpoint R77.30</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/how-to-set-an-X-Frame-Options-response-header-to-avoid/m-p/4315#M364</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Best practice is to have a stealth rule blocking all traffic to the firewall, even from internal networks.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The fact this port is showing up at all suggests you either don't have this rule, it is misconfigured, or you are using Client Authentication, which is a legacy feature.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Unless you are using Client Authentication, there's no reason this port should be accessed at all.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;If you are using Client Authentication,&amp;nbsp;I strongly encourage you to move to Identity Awareness.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 24 Jul 2017 12:56:21 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/how-to-set-an-X-Frame-Options-response-header-to-avoid/m-p/4315#M364</guid>
      <dc:creator>PhoneBoy</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-07-24T12:56:21Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

