<?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: Access-list on PIX FOS 6.3 versus FOS 5.3? in Network Security</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/access-list-on-pix-fos-6-3-versus-fos-5-3/m-p/271853#M578968</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;I was able to type this into a 515 running 6.3.3 with no problem&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;anc-cwc-pix1(config)# access-list 115 permit ip 192.168.1.0 255.255.255.0 10.3$&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;anc-cwc-pix1(config)# access-list 115 deny ip 192.168.1.0 255.255.255.0 any&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;anc-cwc-pix1(config)#&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;you could try using a named access list instead of a numbered one, but I do not see how that would change anything.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 30 Oct 2003 00:29:51 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>dlevinso</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2003-10-30T00:29:51Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Access-list on PIX FOS 6.3 versus FOS 5.3?</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/access-list-on-pix-fos-6-3-versus-fos-5-3/m-p/271852#M578967</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi folks-&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;trying to set up a site to site vpn on a PIX525. Instructions I've been given are for FOS 5.3 to Checkpoint 4.1.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The following lines:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;"access-list 115 permit ip 192.168.1.0 255.255.255.0 &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;10.32.50.0 255.255.255.0 &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;access-list 115 deny ip 192.168.1.0 255.255.255.0 any"&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;produce error output on 6.3-&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;"missing command argument(s)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Usage:  [no] access-list compiled&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;[no] access-list &amp;lt;id&amp;gt; compiled&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;[no] access-list &amp;lt;id&amp;gt; deny|permit &amp;lt;protocol&amp;gt;|object-group &amp;lt;protocol_obj_grp_id&amp;gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;                &amp;lt;sip&amp;gt; &amp;lt;smask&amp;gt; | object-group &amp;lt;network_obj_grp_id&amp;gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;                [&amp;lt;operator&amp;gt; &amp;lt;port&amp;gt; [&amp;lt;port&amp;gt;] | object-group &amp;lt;service_obj_grp_id&amp;gt;]&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;                &amp;lt;dip&amp;gt; &amp;lt;dmask&amp;gt; | object-group &amp;lt;network_obj_grp_id&amp;gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;                [&amp;lt;operator&amp;gt; &amp;lt;port&amp;gt; [&amp;lt;port&amp;gt;] | object-group &amp;lt;service_obj_grp_id&amp;gt;]&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;[no] access-list &amp;lt;id&amp;gt; deny|permit icmp&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;                &amp;lt;sip&amp;gt; &amp;lt;smask&amp;gt; | object-group &amp;lt;network_obj_grp_id&amp;gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;                &amp;lt;dip&amp;gt; &amp;lt;dmask&amp;gt; | object-group &amp;lt;network_obj_grp_id&amp;gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;                [&amp;lt;icmp_type&amp;gt; | object-group &amp;lt;icmp_type_obj_grp_id&amp;gt;]"&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;It looks as though I'll just be using the VPN wizard anyway, but for the record- what was I doing wrong?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I thought I had supplied the necessary arguments.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;cheers-&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;0r8it&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Feb 2020 07:03:58 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/access-list-on-pix-fos-6-3-versus-fos-5-3/m-p/271852#M578967</guid>
      <dc:creator>0r8it</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-02-21T07:03:58Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Access-list on PIX FOS 6.3 versus FOS 5.3?</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/access-list-on-pix-fos-6-3-versus-fos-5-3/m-p/271853#M578968</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;I was able to type this into a 515 running 6.3.3 with no problem&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;anc-cwc-pix1(config)# access-list 115 permit ip 192.168.1.0 255.255.255.0 10.3$&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;anc-cwc-pix1(config)# access-list 115 deny ip 192.168.1.0 255.255.255.0 any&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;anc-cwc-pix1(config)#&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;you could try using a named access list instead of a numbered one, but I do not see how that would change anything.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Oct 2003 00:29:51 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/access-list-on-pix-fos-6-3-versus-fos-5-3/m-p/271853#M578968</guid>
      <dc:creator>dlevinso</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2003-10-30T00:29:51Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

