- Products
- Learn
- Local User Groups
- Partners
-
More
Celebrate the New Year
With CheckMates!
Value of Security
Vendor Self-Awareness
Join Us for CPX 360
23-24 February 2021
Important certificate update to CloudGuard Controller, CME,
and Azure HA Security Gateways
How to Remediate Endpoint & VPN
Issues (in versions E81.10 or earlier)
Mobile Security
Buyer's Guide Out Now
Important! R80 and R80.10
End Of Support around the corner (May 2021)
I was trying to see if I can build smarter policies by nesting them.
This works:
You must be carefull to assign the zones correctly to all interfaces on you firewall(s) or you will be in a heap of trouble.
Not sure if it is the smartest way to do it.
What does not work is trying to nest VPN if they contain Remote Access VPN domains.
As the error explains:
But you can do this Site-to-Site VPN's:
That might make some sense.
Will it also make processing faster of a nested policy?
Looks pretty good to me.
Just out of curiosity, why are you using those 2 additional clean up rules without log? I usually log everything except for some specific internal traffic so I can have accurate statistics.
About the verification error: Some rules with specific objects must be placed on the first layer, but I didn't know remote access was one of them. You will not gain much in performance by using an inline layer with only 2 rules.
Pedro,
There is traffic hitting the firewall that I don't care about. Like the probing done from myown ISP for one. And the various probes done by Shodan as another example.
About CheckMates
Learn Check Point
Advanced Learning
WELCOME TO THE FUTURE OF CYBER SECURITY