<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: Posturing triggered even for CWA in Network Access Control</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/posturing-triggered-even-for-cwa/m-p/3442766#M530228</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks, Jason!&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I wasn't aware that posturing for CWA flow is implicitly enabled.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;So, this would mean that "Require guest device compliance" on the guest portal is only to say posturing is *required*, because triggering is being done anyhow (i.e. independent of this option being enabled or disabled).&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Is that fair?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Also, understand the other points you make and I wasn't disptuing them.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I was mentioning them in support of my main observation: posturing is triggered for CWA flow (i.e. it wasn't some sort of misconfiguration or client being redirected to the wrong interface on the PSN, etc.).&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Apr 2017 16:10:02 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>giosif</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2017-04-12T16:10:02Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Posturing triggered even for CWA</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/posturing-triggered-even-for-cwa/m-p/3442764#M530216</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;A customer running an ISE 1.4 (patch level 10) deployment is using multiple interfaces on the PSN's, as follows:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P style="padding-left: 30px;"&gt;GE0 - for "general" communication (i.e. other ISE nodes, Active Directory, NTP, etc.)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P style="padding-left: 30px;"&gt;GE1 - for RADIUS and posturing (i.e. CPP)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P style="padding-left: 30px;"&gt;GE2 - for guest (i.e. CWA portal)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;A company laptop running AnyConnect with ISE posture module would normally connect and, then, be postured by the posture module on the client talking to the PSN over the GE1 interface.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;However, we were testing some use cases where the same laptop would need to perform web authentication and, for that, we created a guest portal using the GE2 interface (and associated authorization policies with the appropriate authorization profiles).&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The issue is that, although we were hitting the correct authorization policy and the client was being redirected to the proper guest portal page (when we opened a browser and tried to go to "yahoo.com"), at the same time, the ISE posture module was kicking off (that was expected) and finding a policy server and actually performing the posture evaluation (that was not expected).&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I did a packet capture on the client when we saw this issue and I am only seeing communication between the client and the GE2 interface of the PSN.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Also, in terms of redirects, the client is always redirected to a URL containing "action=cwa" and never "cpp".&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;All this sounds like a bug to me, but wanted to first check whether it somehow may be expected behaviour.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thank you!&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;UPDATE:&lt;/STRONG&gt; I forgot to mention that I confirmed "Require guest device compliance" was disabled on the guest portal.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Apr 2017 14:27:24 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/posturing-triggered-even-for-cwa/m-p/3442764#M530216</guid>
      <dc:creator>giosif</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-04-12T14:27:24Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Posturing triggered even for CWA</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/posturing-triggered-even-for-cwa/m-p/3442765#M530222</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; color: #000000;"&gt;&lt;SPAN style="font-size: 11pt; color: #1f497d;"&gt;Posture will be triggered from CWA flow, but can’t recall latest status on “official” full agent support with CWA flow.&amp;nbsp; Traditionally assumed web agent.&amp;nbsp; And to question, when enable the posture checkbox, the redirect will be to cwa, not cpp.&amp;nbsp; If responded to a successful “guest-flow”, then you could redirect back to cpp.&amp;nbsp; This basically splits the operations into two.&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; color: #000000;"&gt;&lt;SPAN style="font-size: 11pt; color: #1f497d;"&gt;Posture triggered from cwa should link to interface and certs on same portal when part of one flow, not divert to separate portal/interface.&amp;nbsp; If split operations, then expect it to shift over. &lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Apr 2017 15:54:12 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/posturing-triggered-even-for-cwa/m-p/3442765#M530222</guid>
      <dc:creator>Jason Kunst</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-04-12T15:54:12Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Posturing triggered even for CWA</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/posturing-triggered-even-for-cwa/m-p/3442766#M530228</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks, Jason!&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I wasn't aware that posturing for CWA flow is implicitly enabled.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;So, this would mean that "Require guest device compliance" on the guest portal is only to say posturing is *required*, because triggering is being done anyhow (i.e. independent of this option being enabled or disabled).&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Is that fair?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Also, understand the other points you make and I wasn't disptuing them.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I was mentioning them in support of my main observation: posturing is triggered for CWA flow (i.e. it wasn't some sort of misconfiguration or client being redirected to the wrong interface on the PSN, etc.).&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Apr 2017 16:10:02 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/posturing-triggered-even-for-cwa/m-p/3442766#M530228</guid>
      <dc:creator>giosif</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-04-12T16:10:02Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Posturing triggered even for CWA</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/posturing-triggered-even-for-cwa/m-p/3442767#M530233</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Correct!&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Apr 2017 16:18:19 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/posturing-triggered-even-for-cwa/m-p/3442767#M530233</guid>
      <dc:creator>Jason Kunst</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-04-12T16:18:19Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Posturing triggered even for CWA</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/posturing-triggered-even-for-cwa/m-p/3442768#M530237</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Great!&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Many thanks for the response!&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Apr 2017 16:20:21 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/posturing-triggered-even-for-cwa/m-p/3442768#M530237</guid>
      <dc:creator>giosif</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-04-12T16:20:21Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

