<?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 I think i would actually do in Network Security</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/blocking-via-the-firewall-vs-blocking-via-access-control-policy/m-p/2814794#M44238</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;I think i would actually do the dual approach. To me, forcing everything to be processed by the module would be a little much unless you have way more processing power than is required. If you have a 5585 and a smaller user base it might not matter. To me it seems like a waste of processing power if you want the packet dropped anyway. Also if you want intelligence into where traffic is going and you aren't sending logs to a SIEM then you might want it sent to the module(geo location, reputation, etc).&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Jan 2016 02:57:02 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>babiojd01</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2016-01-22T02:57:02Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Blocking via the firewall vs Blocking via Access control policy firesight and Firepower</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/blocking-via-the-firewall-vs-blocking-via-access-control-policy/m-p/2814791#M44235</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;What would the benefit of blocking a destination port in the firepower access control policy over an access control list on the ASA firewall? I think it would process faster if its an ACL vs something needing further processing in order to be blocked anyway.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 10 Mar 2019 13:32:50 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/blocking-via-the-firewall-vs-blocking-via-access-control-policy/m-p/2814791#M44235</guid>
      <dc:creator>babiojd01</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-03-10T13:32:50Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>The ASA can do IP/block</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/blocking-via-the-firewall-vs-blocking-via-access-control-policy/m-p/2814792#M44236</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;The ASA can do IP/block blocking on a much large scale.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;I always do ip/port blocking in the ASA, and use Firepower to block things the ASA can not block easily.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Jan 2016 04:13:25 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/blocking-via-the-firewall-vs-blocking-via-access-control-policy/m-p/2814792#M44236</guid>
      <dc:creator>Philip D'Ath</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2016-01-21T04:13:25Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>In my mind it doesn't make</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/blocking-via-the-firewall-vs-blocking-via-access-control-policy/m-p/2814793#M44237</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;In my mind it doesn't make sense to filter at both levels since you can do all the filtering you need at sourcefire level, however if you opt for fail-open mode it may be advisable to do some basic filtering in order to limit access to internal resources at asa level also.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Maybe be there are other cases like that, but that's the only one I've seen so far.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Jan 2016 05:16:26 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/blocking-via-the-firewall-vs-blocking-via-access-control-policy/m-p/2814793#M44237</guid>
      <dc:creator>Massimo Baschieri</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2016-01-21T05:16:26Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>I think i would actually do</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/blocking-via-the-firewall-vs-blocking-via-access-control-policy/m-p/2814794#M44238</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I think i would actually do the dual approach. To me, forcing everything to be processed by the module would be a little much unless you have way more processing power than is required. If you have a 5585 and a smaller user base it might not matter. To me it seems like a waste of processing power if you want the packet dropped anyway. Also if you want intelligence into where traffic is going and you aren't sending logs to a SIEM then you might want it sent to the module(geo location, reputation, etc).&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Jan 2016 02:57:02 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/blocking-via-the-firewall-vs-blocking-via-access-control-policy/m-p/2814794#M44238</guid>
      <dc:creator>babiojd01</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2016-01-22T02:57:02Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

