- Products
- Learn
- Local User Groups
- Partners
- More
Stop Babysitting Rules.
Go Agentic
Step Into the Future of
AI-Powered Cyber Security
The State of Ransomware Q1 2026
Key Trends and Their Impact
AI Security Masters E8:
Claude Mythos: New Era in Cyber Security
Blueprint Architecture for Securing
The AI Factory & AI Data Center
Call For Papers
Your Expertise. Our Stage
CheckMates Go:
CheckMates Fest
Users reported issue accessing one particular web site. It always ends up with a timeout error. In the logs, the connection is accepted but with reason:
Connection terminated before detection: Insufficient data passed. To learn more see sk113479
The sk offers an explanation but no solution. This site is accessible by others in different organisations but not for us.
We have a pair of gateways in a cluster running R80.20 jhf take 14
It seems that your policy requires an application or URL categorization to happen before final match, and it fails for this specific web site.
Try creating a new explicit rule with the web server as destination and web services allowed, put it before the rules matching now, and try again.
Unfortunately that didn't work. I created a rule just for that web site and placed it at the top of the rulebase and we're still getting that "Insufficient data passed" mssage.
Seems I misread your suggestion. I had created an explicit access security rule for that website. I tried again with an explicit Application rule and I'm not getting the 'Insufficient data passed' error anymore. So as far as the firewall goes everything looks ok. But I still can't access that site (cjc-ccm.ca) when it seems pretty much anyone else can, very frustrating.
I'm running into this issue with R81.10 JHF110, no issues before that. It's saying not to run the command for insufficient data, but the reason is just insufficient data in the Reason category. Do we just assume we need to allow uncategorized traffic with JHF110? Could there be a bug with R81.10 JHF110. I'm going to start a case with TAC Monday. Basically, this affected me after changing a Nat rule with 110. I have another case of it, changed a NAT rule and data won't pass, yet I have a default rule. I may have to just explicitly allow uncategorized traffic.
It might be a bug, worth a TAC case, for sure.
Andy
"Accept logs with reason "Connection terminated before detection: Insufficient data passed. To learn more see sk113479." may be wrongly generated when the matched action is user authentication and the wrong username/password is provided by the user."
Was fixed in R80.20 Take 190, but I can't say for sure it's your issue.
Take 14 is not even listed in the documentation, it would probably be worthwhile to at least upgrade to the final release of R80.20 Take 230 for your gateways if you are unable to plan to get to a supported version.
List of All Resolved Issues and New Features (checkpoint.com)
Just realized my typo. we're at R81.20 take 14. Sorry for the confusion
I cant even count how many times I was on the phone with customers and every single time TAC would tell them this message simply means its not Check Point issue...that sk is really a LONG way of saying that lol
Sorry, but this is not what Sk is saying.
Correct, sk does not, but TAC does 😂...and they are 100% correct.
Hello,
I have seen more logs with this message on R81.10 than previous versions, and usually doing a "fw ctl zdebug drop" shows that the gateway was actually dropping the traffic, try with that, if you do not see drops, it is very likely that the Connection was actually terminated before detection and a packet capture can help to understand why.
Regards
My experience was worse with R80.40 for this issue, had not seen much in R81.10 and nothing so far in R81.20
Andy
fw ctl zdebug drop does not show anything. I'll try a packet capture. thanks
Did you open TAC case foir this to verify with them?
Andy
No. I was hoping to look at a packet capture (which I haven't done yet) before trying TAC.
Unless you are not allowed to, if you can attach the capture here and give us relevant info, Im happy to also have a look.
Andy
Leaderboard
Epsum factorial non deposit quid pro quo hic escorol.
| User | Count |
|---|---|
| 23 | |
| 19 | |
| 9 | |
| 9 | |
| 8 | |
| 7 | |
| 7 | |
| 5 | |
| 4 | |
| 4 |
Fri 29 May 2026 @ 09:00 AM (EDT)
Caracas: Executive Breakfast: Innovación en Ciberseguridad – IA y Threat IntelligenceTue 02 Jun 2026 @ 06:00 PM (IDT)
Under the Hood | Check Point SASE: Identity Integration & Access Policy Design Best PracticesThu 04 Jun 2026 @ 02:00 PM (CEST)
Deep Dive Webinar: New CloudGuard GWLB Deployment Without NAT Gateways - EuropeTue 02 Jun 2026 @ 06:00 PM (IDT)
Under the Hood | Check Point SASE: Identity Integration & Access Policy Design Best PracticesThu 04 Jun 2026 @ 02:00 PM (CEST)
Deep Dive Webinar: New CloudGuard GWLB Deployment Without NAT Gateways - EuropeThu 04 Jun 2026 @ 07:00 PM (IDT)
Deep Dive Webinar: New CloudGuard GWLB Deployment Without NAT Gateways - AmericaFri 12 Jun 2026 @ 10:00 AM (CEST)
CheckMates Live Netherlands - Sessie 47: Continuous Threat Exposure ManagementThu 18 Jun 2026 @ 10:00 AM (CEST)
The Cloud Architects Series: Check Point WAF - The Next Generation of AI powered protectionFri 29 May 2026 @ 09:00 AM (EDT)
Caracas: Executive Breakfast: Innovación en Ciberseguridad – IA y Threat IntelligenceAbout CheckMates
Learn Check Point
Advanced Learning
YOU DESERVE THE BEST SECURITY