- Products
- Learn
- Local User Groups
- Partners
- More
What's New in R82.10?
10 December @ 5pm CET / 11am ET
Improve Your Security Posture with
Threat Prevention and Policy Insights
Overlap in Security Validation
Help us to understand your needs better
CheckMates Go:
Maestro Madness
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 |
|---|---|
| 19 | |
| 12 | |
| 8 | |
| 7 | |
| 7 | |
| 5 | |
| 5 | |
| 4 | |
| 3 | |
| 3 |
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