<?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: Firewall Rule Interpretation in Network Security</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/firewall-rule-interpretation/m-p/1650435#M593947</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;So in this case, what benefit do I get from using enhanced service objects? Since I am only using port 80, 443 I could have used a protocol specific service object as indicated below, correct?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;object-group service test tcp&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;port-object eq 80&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;port-object eq 443&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;So now I know the configuration I listed in my original post works, but again, am I really deriving any benefit from doing it that way? My guess is no. What do you think?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 18 Jan 2011 21:07:23 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>ksarin123_2</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2011-01-18T21:07:23Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Firewall Rule Interpretation</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/firewall-rule-interpretation/m-p/1650433#M593936</link>
      <description>&lt;DIV class="postbody"&gt;Hello All,&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;Can someone please explain this rule configured in a Cisco ASA firewall? Apparently, this rule was written to allow Internet access to a CORP office.&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;access-list CORP-IN extended permit object-group Web-Ports object CORP-USER-NET any&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;object-group service Web-Ports&lt;BR /&gt;description Server access to internet ports&lt;BR /&gt;service-object tcp destination eq www &lt;BR /&gt;service-object tcp destination eq https&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;object network CORP-USER-NET &lt;BR /&gt;subnet 10.218.0.0 255.255.255.128&lt;BR /&gt;description CORP - User Network&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;Per my understanding, it should be configured as follows:&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;access-list CORP-IN extended permit object CORP-USER-NET any object-group Web-Ports.&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;To me, its almost configured backwards. But it's working, since users are able to get internet access. Can someone explain this?&lt;/DIV&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Mar 2019 19:36:53 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/firewall-rule-interpretation/m-p/1650433#M593936</guid>
      <dc:creator>ksarin123_2</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-03-11T19:36:53Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Firewall Rule Interpretation</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/firewall-rule-interpretation/m-p/1650434#M593941</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hello,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Since your object-group Web-Ports consists of service objects, the way it is configured seems to be correct. You can check the access-list by issuing "show access-list CORP-IN" command.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;A class="jive-link-external-small" href="http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/vpndevc/ps2030/products_tech_note09186a00800d641d.shtml#serv"&gt;http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/vpndevc/ps2030/products_tech_note09186a00800d641d.shtml#serv&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hope this helps.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regards,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;NT&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Jan 2011 20:36:33 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/firewall-rule-interpretation/m-p/1650434#M593941</guid>
      <dc:creator>Nagaraja Thanthry</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2011-01-18T20:36:33Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Firewall Rule Interpretation</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/firewall-rule-interpretation/m-p/1650435#M593947</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;So in this case, what benefit do I get from using enhanced service objects? Since I am only using port 80, 443 I could have used a protocol specific service object as indicated below, correct?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;object-group service test tcp&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;port-object eq 80&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;port-object eq 443&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;So now I know the configuration I listed in my original post works, but again, am I really deriving any benefit from doing it that way? My guess is no. What do you think?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Jan 2011 21:07:23 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/firewall-rule-interpretation/m-p/1650435#M593947</guid>
      <dc:creator>ksarin123_2</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2011-01-18T21:07:23Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Firewall Rule Interpretation</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/firewall-rule-interpretation/m-p/1650436#M593954</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;In your case, you are not getting any advantage. The enhanced service object is used when you need to group multiple protocols and ports into one group.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hope this helps.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regards,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;NT&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Jan 2011 21:09:09 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/firewall-rule-interpretation/m-p/1650436#M593954</guid>
      <dc:creator>Nagaraja Thanthry</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2011-01-18T21:09:09Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

