- Products
- Learn
- Local User Groups
- Partners
- More
Policy Insights and Policy Auditor in Action
19 November @ 5pm CET / 11am ET
Access Control and Threat Prevention Best Practices
Watch HereOverlap in Security Validation
Help us to understand your needs better
CheckMates Go:
Maestro Madness
Hi All,
We are moving a lot of servers and I would like to add the new objects next to the old ones in the ruleset.
I still have to keep the old ones for a while though so I can not just change the IPs of the objects itself.
So the thing is that now we have an OLDobject with IP 1.1.1.1 and a NEWobject with IP 2.1.1.1.
There is rule 1 and 145 and 645 where OLDobject as source is present, and I would like to add the NEWobject next to it.
If I do it manually I have to go over the ruleset and I really would like to not do that. 🙂
That's why I asked the automation, becuase real life is this sample x 100.
Grouping is not really a nice option in my opinion either, because when all the tests ran I have to remove the OLDobject anyway, which would leave a group as source with one member in it.
Thanks a lot!
I dont see why not, as long as there are no IP conflicts. You can try few and then do rule base verification to see if it gives you any warning/errors. I would not be too concerned about warnings, unless its something super important.
I mean via API or something automated way, becuase I have many to do so.
Hi,
Not sure if this is what you are referring to, but you could use following Management API commands:
https://sc1.checkpoint.com/documents/latest/APIs/index.html#cli/set-access-rule~v1.8%20
You can add the relevant objects / servers to a Network Group and then add it to the rule.
If this is not what you are referring to please elaborate.
BR
Tal
Ok, sorry, did not realize there were so many...in that case, @Tal_Paz-Fridman is correct. API is your best option here.
Andy
Hi,
Yes, I would like to avoid grouping.
So the thing is that now we have an OLDobject with IP 1.1.1.1 and a NEWobject with IP 2.1.1.1.
There is rule 1 and 145 and 645 where OLDobject as source is present, and I would like to add the NEWobject next to it.
If I do it manually I have to go over the ruleset and I really would like to not do that. 🙂
That's why I asked the automation, becuase real life is this sample x 100.
Grouping is not really a nice option in my opinion either, because when all the tests ran I have to remove the OLDobject anyway, which would leave a group as source with one member in it.
Hope this makes more sense, yesterday I was way-way more tired than this 🙂
Thanks a lot!
You would use set-access-rule as noted by @Tal_Paz-Fridman to actually change the rules.
Or are you looking for a programmatic way to find the rules that you need to modify?
In that case, you probably want to use the where-used API call to find the specific instances where the old object is used and then use set-access-rule to update the rules accordingly.
I would attack this with a script which works like this:
NAT rules are more complex, as they can't have multiple objects in fields. I think I would look for the old object in each field, one at a time, then copy the other fields to a new NAT rule which I add to the policy package immediately below the old NAT rule. If you don't use them in NAT rules directly, then you can skip all that.
This also wouldn't handle other objects-which-reference-objects situations like Access Roles. Should get you >90% of the way there, though.
Hi,
did someone manage to create such a script and would be willing to share it? I would be very grateful!
KR
Rok
Hello
+1
I would like has a way to add a newobject in the rule is exists an old object too.
Some checkpoint expert has an script to perform that requeriment? I think that is a great challenge for you.
I see that https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Management/How-can-I-quickly-move-from-many-objects-in-many-rule.... But, sometimes its bettter have both objects than a group object.
set access-rule command works just fine with adding additional objects, I don't think that writing a script should be too complicated if you have experience with this.
Just for syntax reference, I used the following:
mgmt_cli set access-rule layer "Network" -r true rule-number 1 dst.add Host1
mgmt_cli set access-rule layer "Network" -r true rule-number 1 dst.add Host2
This added dst to a rule and the second added the second host without subtracting the first one, means this command should be suitable for you.
Leaderboard
Epsum factorial non deposit quid pro quo hic escorol.
| User | Count |
|---|---|
| 4 | |
| 3 | |
| 1 | |
| 1 | |
| 1 | |
| 1 | |
| 1 |
Wed 26 Nov 2025 @ 12:00 PM (COT)
Panama City: Risk Management a la Parrilla: ERM, TEM & Meat LunchWed 03 Dec 2025 @ 10:00 AM (COT)
Última Sesión del Año – CheckMates LATAM: ERM & TEM con ExpertosThu 04 Dec 2025 @ 12:30 PM (SGT)
End-of-Year Event: Securing AI Transformation in a Hyperconnected World - APACThu 04 Dec 2025 @ 03:00 PM (CET)
End-of-Year Event: Securing AI Transformation in a Hyperconnected World - EMEAThu 04 Dec 2025 @ 02:00 PM (EST)
End-of-Year Event: Securing AI Transformation in a Hyperconnected World - AmericasWed 03 Dec 2025 @ 10:00 AM (COT)
Última Sesión del Año – CheckMates LATAM: ERM & TEM con ExpertosThu 04 Dec 2025 @ 12:30 PM (SGT)
End-of-Year Event: Securing AI Transformation in a Hyperconnected World - APACThu 04 Dec 2025 @ 03:00 PM (CET)
End-of-Year Event: Securing AI Transformation in a Hyperconnected World - EMEAThu 04 Dec 2025 @ 02:00 PM (EST)
End-of-Year Event: Securing AI Transformation in a Hyperconnected World - AmericasWed 26 Nov 2025 @ 12:00 PM (COT)
Panama City: Risk Management a la Parrilla: ERM, TEM & Meat LunchAbout CheckMates
Learn Check Point
Advanced Learning
YOU DESERVE THE BEST SECURITY