Full Disclosure mailing list archives
Re: PIX vs CheckPoint
From: B3r3n <B3r3n () argosnet com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 20:26:18 +0200
At 10:29 30/06/2004, Cyril Guibourg wrote:
AFAIK, a PIX can operate without NAT. Did I miss something ?
Yes, NAT can be disabled on Pix. See the 'nat' command.Simply put the appropriate line syntax and it will behaves as a normal Firewall. But only behaves because no routing daemon, and Pix keeps managing packets as a NAT box, he just does not change the source IP
Brgrds _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
Current thread:
- RE: PIX vs CheckPoint, (continued)
- RE: PIX vs CheckPoint Otero, Hernan (EDS) (Jun 29)
- Re: PIX vs CheckPoint B3r3n (Jun 29)
- RE: PIX vs CheckPoint Ray P (Jun 29)
- Re: PIX vs CheckPoint Jim Burwell (Jun 30)
- RE: PIX vs CheckPoint Otero, Hernan (EDS) (Jun 30)
- Re: PIX vs CheckPoint Cyril Guibourg (Jun 30)
- Re: PIX vs CheckPoint Ben Nelson (Jun 30)
- Re: PIX vs CheckPoint Cyril Guibourg (Jun 30)
- Re: PIX vs CheckPoint Jim Burwell (Jun 30)
- Re: PIX vs CheckPoint Cyril Guibourg (Jun 30)
- Re: PIX vs CheckPoint Roger Howorth (Jun 30)
- Re: PIX vs CheckPoint B3r3n (Jun 30)
- RE: PIX vs CheckPoint James Patterson Wicks (Jun 30)
- RE: PIX vs CheckPoint Abraham, Antony (Cognizant) (Jun 30)
- RE: PIX vs CheckPoint Perrymon, Josh L. (Jun 30)
- RE: PIX vs CheckPoint Charlie Winckless (Jun 30)