- Products
- Learn
- Local User Groups
- Partners
- More
The Great Exposure Reset
24 February 2026 @ 5pm CET / 11am EST
CheckMates Fest 2026
Watch Now!AI Security Masters
Hacking with AI: The Dark Side of Innovation
CheckMates Go:
CheckMates Fest
Hi Checkmates
Today, we encountered an unexpected issue with our firewall policy deployment on R81.10. Despite undergoing rules verification, the policy was installed with an "any src, any dst, any port, action drop and do not log" rule. This oversight raises concerns about the effectiveness of the policy verification process specifically on R81.10.
Upon further testing, we found that policy verification functions correctly on other versions such as R80.40 and R81.20. However, this discrepancy on R81.10 is troubling, as it allowed traffic to be blocked below rule 142 without proper logging.
Please point me to the right direction
Hi - this is the default behavior for improved performance.
You can change it using the instructions in sk161574
https://support.checkpoint.com/results/sk/sk161574
Policy verification does not alert about rules that hide other rules
Hi Legend
See the attached. We eventually got TAC involved, the issue seem to be with R81.10 JHF 110. The solution is to upgrade to JHF R81.10 130 as it is able to pickup conflicting rules.
On the attached rule 175 conflicts with the default cleanup rule and the verify policy is successful on R81.10 JHF 110, but fails on R81.10 JHF 130 which is what we're expecting.
Thanks everyone for you input.
Not sure I understand. Does the policy package you install contain multiple rules? How do you know that installed package only has Any-Any-Drop-No logs rule?
Please provide more details here.
Hi - this is the default behavior for improved performance.
You can change it using the instructions in sk161574
https://support.checkpoint.com/results/sk/sk161574
Policy verification does not alert about rules that hide other rules
Good to know, I was not aware.
Thanks Tal.
Andy
Can you attach whatever is relevant from the server where this is not working? Please blur out any sensitive info.
Andy
Hi Legend
See the attached. We eventually got TAC involved, the issue seem to be with R81.10 JHF 110. The solution is to upgrade to JHF R81.10 130 as it is able to pickup conflicting rules.
On the attached rule 175 conflicts with the default cleanup rule and the verify policy is successful on R81.10 JHF 110, but fails on R81.10 JHF 130 which is what we're expecting.
Thanks everyone for you input.
Thats good to know.
Best,
Andy
Leaderboard
Epsum factorial non deposit quid pro quo hic escorol.
| User | Count |
|---|---|
| 56 | |
| 44 | |
| 16 | |
| 14 | |
| 14 | |
| 11 | |
| 10 | |
| 10 | |
| 9 | |
| 8 |
Thu 12 Feb 2026 @ 05:00 PM (CET)
AI Security Masters Session 3: AI-Generated Malware - From Experimentation to Operational RealityFri 13 Feb 2026 @ 10:00 AM (CET)
CheckMates Live Netherlands - Sessie 43: Terugblik op de Check Point Sales Kick Off 2026Thu 19 Feb 2026 @ 03:00 PM (EST)
Americas Deep Dive: Check Point Management API Best PracticesThu 12 Feb 2026 @ 05:00 PM (CET)
AI Security Masters Session 3: AI-Generated Malware - From Experimentation to Operational RealityFri 13 Feb 2026 @ 10:00 AM (CET)
CheckMates Live Netherlands - Sessie 43: Terugblik op de Check Point Sales Kick Off 2026Thu 19 Feb 2026 @ 03:00 PM (EST)
Americas Deep Dive: Check Point Management API Best PracticesAbout CheckMates
Learn Check Point
Advanced Learning
YOU DESERVE THE BEST SECURITY