- Products
- Learn
- Local User Groups
- Partners
- More
MVP 2026: Submissions
Are Now Open!
What's New in R82.10?
10 December @ 5pm CET / 11am ET
Announcing Quantum R82.10!
Learn MoreOverlap in Security Validation
Help us to understand your needs better
CheckMates Go:
Maestro Madness
Yesterday we upgraded the mgmt from r80.40 to r81.20
and we have two firewalls still on r80.40
the site to site on the firewalls still up but the icmp/snmp traffic generated from same source ip addresses in the tunnel are being dropped with this error message:
@;3243628120;[vs_0];[tid_0];[fw4_0];fw_log_drop_ex: Packet proto=17 x.x.x.x:56134 -> y.y.y.y:161 dropped by vpn_drop_and_log Reason: Clear text packet should be encrypted;
@;3243632857;[vs_0];[tid_0];[fw4_0];fw_log_drop_ex: Packet proto=1 x.x.x.x:52 ->y.y.y.y:0 dropped by vpn_drop_and_log Reason: Clear text packet should be encrypted;
on the mgmt we edited this file: //opt/CPsuite-R81.20/fw1/lib/crypt.def last lines to:
#ifndef NON_VPN_TRAFFIC_RULES
#ifndef IPV6_FLAVOR
#define NON_VPN_TRAFFIC_RULES (dst=y.y.y.y or dst=z.z.z.z)
#else
#define NON_VPN_TRAFFIC_RULES 0
#endif
the problem is still occurring
how to fix this ?
please advice
thanks
Let me see if I can find some stuff about this, it might be known issue if gateways are still on R80.40
Andy
K, found it...MAKE SURE to backup the files first, of course
No sir, that also did not fix the issue
[Expert@CP-MGMT:0]# cd $FWDIR/conf
[Expert@CP-MGMT:0]# pwd
/opt/CPsuite-R81.20/fw1/conf
[Expert@CP-MGMT:0]# ll | grep user.def
...
-rwxrwx--- 1 admin bin 882 Mar 7 20:44 user.def.FW1
...
-rw-r----- 1 admin bin 732 Nov 16 2022 user.def.R8040CMP
...
[Expert@CP-MGMT:0]#
[Expert@CP-MGMT:0]# cp user.def.FW1 user.def.R8040CMP
[Expert@CP-MGMT:0]#
[Expert@CP-MGMT:0]# ll | grep user.def.FW
-rwxrwx--- 1 admin bin 882 Mar 7 20:44 user.def.FW1
[Expert@CP-MGMT:0]# ll | grep user.def.R
....
-rw-r----- 1 admin bin 882 Mar 8 18:56 user.def.R8040CMP
Did you install the policy?
sure i did 🙂
K, fair enough. If thats the case, I dont want to tell you to modify anything else with that file, as Im worried we may make it worse and no one wants that on the weekend lol
Anyway...maybe reverse all the changes and lets take a step back here. So, IF its saying clear packet should be encrypted, logically, that insinuates to me that something is missing in the enc. domain possibly...can you check?
Best,
Andy
thankyou
we'll check with TAC
Hi bezeq_int,
So, it's a while ago but any chance you could still share the outcome of your TAC case? Would be great for me but also other people crawling these topics.
Leaderboard
Epsum factorial non deposit quid pro quo hic escorol.
| User | Count |
|---|---|
| 16 | |
| 12 | |
| 8 | |
| 7 | |
| 6 | |
| 4 | |
| 3 | |
| 3 | |
| 2 | |
| 2 |
Fri 12 Dec 2025 @ 10:00 AM (CET)
Check Mates Live Netherlands: #41 AI & Multi Context ProtocolTue 16 Dec 2025 @ 05:00 PM (CET)
Under the Hood: CloudGuard Network Security for Oracle Cloud - Config and Autoscaling!Fri 12 Dec 2025 @ 10:00 AM (CET)
Check Mates Live Netherlands: #41 AI & Multi Context ProtocolTue 16 Dec 2025 @ 05:00 PM (CET)
Under the Hood: CloudGuard Network Security for Oracle Cloud - Config and Autoscaling!Thu 18 Dec 2025 @ 10:00 AM (CET)
Cloud Architect Series - Building a Hybrid Mesh Security Strategy across cloudsAbout CheckMates
Learn Check Point
Advanced Learning
YOU DESERVE THE BEST SECURITY