- Products
- Learn
- Local User Groups
- Partners
- More
Quantum Spark Management Unleashed!
Check Point Named Leader
2025 Gartner® Magic Quadrant™ for Hybrid Mesh Firewall
HTTPS Inspection
Help us to understand your needs better
CheckMates Go:
SharePoint CVEs and More!
Hey guys,
After upgrade from R77.30 to R80.20, I notice that I got issue on all connections with high TCP ports passing through a VPN tunnel.
That was huuuge... Fortunately after the upgrade I have immediately tried to disable SecureXL acceleration as per https://supportcenter.checkpoint.com/supportcenter/portal?eventSubmit_doGoviewsolutiondetails=&solut... and solved the issue.
Anyone has experienced this issue before?
I know that in R80.20 SecureXL was moved to Fw_Worker.
Anyone can explain to me the difference from R77.30 in detail?
I think that probably this mechanism change is causing issue on all connections with high tcp ports.
BR
Luca
Hi @PhoneBoy ,
Yessir TAC case already opened.
The traffic is passing through the same VPN tunnel and matching same rule as with the previous installed version R77.30.
No changes were made (SecureXL was always enabled).
I'll keep you posted with TAC updates in order to understand if there is a major issue on R80.20.
RealD!Z
Note that in R80.20 Jumbo HFA Take 47 and later, a new command called vpn accel was added that allows switching off SecureXL acceleration just for VPN traffic (similar to sim vpn off;fwaccel off;fwaccel on in R80.10 and earlier), which is different from the f2f_addresses mechanism you used:
sk151114: "fwaccel off" does not affect disabling acceleration of VPN tunnels in R80.20 and above
This new command was not available in R80.20 vanilla. Still as Dameon mentioned it is very important to figure out why SecureXL needs to be disabled in the first place, regardless of the mechanism you use to disable it. 🙂
As I don't know what the rule was on R77.30, please share the details of it.
Hi @TheRealDiZ
I am also experiencing the same issue after upgrade to R80.20. Can you please share if you guys were able to find the reason along with TAC.
Hi @Raman_Arora ,
Unfortunately after one month I still discussing this issue with the TAC... I'll keep you posted!
.. 😞
Hi guys,
We're experiencing the same kind issue with VPNs and SecureXL. Turn accel off and it starts working.
The funny thing is ICMP and port 3306 works but any other port we've tried fails. This issue manifests when routing from one VPN to another. We have two VTIs configured and we resolved the issues from on-prem by turning the accel off just for those two nodes:
vpn accel off xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx xxx.xxx.xxx (public IP addresses of the remote VPN tunnels you want to turn off)
But with this method, you can only turn off accel just for two nodes
Hope this helps someone.
Please keep up posted if a solution comes about
Hi Serban,
Thanks for the update, I think you mean vpn accel off xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx xxx.xxx.xxx not fw accel off xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx xxx.xxx.xxx.
Sorry, I read afterward. yes you're right VPN ACCEL OFF
*** Corrected so people don't get confused and turn off SecureXL altogether 😄 ***
Hi @Serban_Biliuti ,
That's HUGE and very useful and I will try to use it.. Thank you!
By the way we are still investigating why with the accelaration we got the issue.
I'll keep you guys posted with my findings with the TAC.
We actually need to run other debugs.
Hello,
I tried the "vpn accel off" and it did not fix my error, fwaccel off does fix the error messages but increase CPU load.
Did you get a fix from TAC.
Thank you Leo
@;60895392;[cpu_0];[fw4_3];fw_log_drop_ex: Packet proto=6 10.16.225.211:4281 -> 172.16.5.125:43754 dropped by vpn_route_change_sxl_notification_handler Reason: dynamic VPN routing is not supported;
@;60896125;[cpu_3];[fw4_0];fw_log_drop_ex: Packet proto=6 10.16.225.211:4219 -> 172.16.5.125:38282 dropped by vpn_route_change_sxl_notification_handler Reason: dynamic VPN routing is not supported;
@;60896284;[cpu_0];[fw4_3];fw_log_drop_ex: Packet proto=6 10.16.225.211:4281 -> 172.16.5.125:43754 dropped by vpn_route_change_sxl_notification_handler Reason: dynamic VPN routing is not supported;
Open a TAC case
Hi,
We have the same issue on a SMB appliance (1500 appliance, R80.20.x) with route based VPN and IKEv2.
VPN tunnels look up, but no traffic goes through the VPN.
Disabling "vpn accel" makes everthing working as expected.
From the different comments, this should not be the way to go but what are exactly the impacts if we leave VPN accel disabled? (appart from not accelerating VPN)
Thanks
Leaderboard
Epsum factorial non deposit quid pro quo hic escorol.
User | Count |
---|---|
10 | |
8 | |
6 | |
6 | |
5 | |
5 | |
5 | |
5 | |
5 | |
4 |
Wed 17 Sep 2025 @ 03:00 PM (CEST)
Securing Applications with Check Point and AWS: A Unified WAF-as-a-Service Approach - EMEAThu 18 Sep 2025 @ 03:00 PM (CEST)
Bridge the Unmanaged Device Gap with Enterprise Browser - EMEAThu 18 Sep 2025 @ 02:00 PM (EDT)
Bridge the Unmanaged Device Gap with Enterprise Browser - AmericasMon 22 Sep 2025 @ 03:00 PM (CEST)
Defending Hyperconnected AI-Driven Networks with Hybrid Mesh Security EMEAWed 17 Sep 2025 @ 03:00 PM (CEST)
Securing Applications with Check Point and AWS: A Unified WAF-as-a-Service Approach - EMEAThu 18 Sep 2025 @ 03:00 PM (CEST)
Bridge the Unmanaged Device Gap with Enterprise Browser - EMEAThu 18 Sep 2025 @ 02:00 PM (EDT)
Bridge the Unmanaged Device Gap with Enterprise Browser - AmericasMon 22 Sep 2025 @ 03:00 PM (CEST)
Defending Hyperconnected AI-Driven Networks with Hybrid Mesh Security EMEAAbout CheckMates
Learn Check Point
Advanced Learning
YOU DESERVE THE BEST SECURITY