- Products
- Learn
- Local User Groups
- Partners
- More
Step Into the Future of
AI-Powered Cyber Security
When the Agents Attack
A Live Look at Agentic Exposure Validation
Bridge the CAASM Gap
with Exposure Management
AI Security Masters E8:
Claude Mythos: New Era in Cyber Security
CheckMates Go:
CheckMates Fest
I just tested in lab VSX Netflow with R81 and R81.10 VSX gateway and notice there is a different behaviour between 2 versions.
On R81 VSX gateway, I could sent out netflow per VS with its own IP as source address (verified by wireshark on the collector).
On R81.10 VSX gateway, it is reverted to same behaviour as R80.40 that all netflow is sent by VS0, if VS0 does not have any route to go out, then no netflow can be received by the collector.
Anybody could confirm which behaviour is final? or there are specific procedure for R81.10 to make it same as R81?
If you need a specific enhancement related to this topic, please raise an RFE through the standard channels.
One of two possibilities:
This SK suggests the first one is probably the case: https://supportcenter.checkpoint.com/supportcenter/portal?eventSubmit_doGoviewsolutiondetails=&solut...
Regardless, I recommend a TAC case.
Hi,
What you are seeing in R81.10 is the correct behavior. Traffic should be leaving through VS0 instead of the VS itself. This is also described in https://supportcenter.checkpoint.com/supportcenter/portal?eventSubmit_doGoviewsolutiondetails=&solut...
However, in R81 there was a bug that traffic was sent per VS with its own IP as source address. This bug is already solved and will be released in a Jumbo HF version soon.
Thanks,
Fadi
That's too bad.
Actuall,y why not let each VS sent netflow on its own? This is what most customer would expect and requested as usually each VS belong to different network which is not accessible (also not allowed) through VS0.
I know some may suggest adding a virtual switch then all VS and VS0 conenct to that switch which would make the netflow able to sent from VS0, but that is explicitly forbidded as each VS belong to different customer/administrator.
Hi,
I understand your concern.
I will take it internally with R&D to see if we can develop something else for future releases.
Hi Fadi,
I would like to know if you have got any update or latest news on this topic.
Thanks,
Saravana
There are VSX changes coming with R82 but not sure about Netflow specifically.
Please follow this up with your local SE to confirm and ensure it is supported by RFEs.
Hi Chris,
Thanks for your response, noted.
Regards,
Saravana
If you need a specific enhancement related to this topic, please raise an RFE through the standard channels.
Leaderboard
Epsum factorial non deposit quid pro quo hic escorol.
| User | Count |
|---|---|
| 28 | |
| 12 | |
| 6 | |
| 5 | |
| 5 | |
| 5 | |
| 5 | |
| 4 | |
| 4 | |
| 3 |
Tue 16 Jun 2026 @ 05:00 PM (CEST)
Under the Hood: Check Point SASE | Internet Access Optimization & Performance TuningThu 18 Jun 2026 @ 10:00 AM (CEST)
The Cloud Architects Series: Check Point WAF - The Next Generation of AI powered protectionTue 23 Jun 2026 @ 05:00 PM (CEST)
Under the Hood: Check Point Cloud Firewall | Securing all of your clouds: Art of the possibleTue 16 Jun 2026 @ 05:00 PM (CEST)
Under the Hood: Check Point SASE | Internet Access Optimization & Performance TuningThu 18 Jun 2026 @ 10:00 AM (CEST)
The Cloud Architects Series: Check Point WAF - The Next Generation of AI powered protectionTue 23 Jun 2026 @ 05:00 PM (CEST)
Under the Hood: Check Point Cloud Firewall | Securing all of your clouds: Art of the possibleThu 25 Jun 2026 @ 10:00 AM (PDT)
AI Security Masters E10: READY OR NOT: Securing the AI Enterprise 2/5 - AI Red TeamingAbout CheckMates
Learn Check Point
Advanced Learning
YOU DESERVE THE BEST SECURITY