<?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 Unexpected access through ACL in Network Security</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/unexpected-access-through-acl/m-p/1159302#M877904</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I'm having a problem that I can't figure out.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;To outline a simple setup of our configuration i looks like this:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;inside (sec. level 100)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;outside (sec. level 0)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;dmz (sec. level 20)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Now, I've created a NAT excemt statement between the dmz and the inside network. I then created a rule on the dmz interface that allows http to any.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The problem is that this rule also allows http access to the inside. I might be wrong, but shouldn't the security levels prevent this automatically in spite of the "any" rule?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Maybe it has something to do with the nat excemt, or it might just be default behaviour?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks in advance,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Rasmus&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 11 Mar 2019 14:34:31 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>blueoceanventure</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2019-03-11T14:34:31Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Unexpected access through ACL</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/unexpected-access-through-acl/m-p/1159302#M877904</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I'm having a problem that I can't figure out.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;To outline a simple setup of our configuration i looks like this:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;inside (sec. level 100)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;outside (sec. level 0)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;dmz (sec. level 20)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Now, I've created a NAT excemt statement between the dmz and the inside network. I then created a rule on the dmz interface that allows http to any.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The problem is that this rule also allows http access to the inside. I might be wrong, but shouldn't the security levels prevent this automatically in spite of the "any" rule?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Maybe it has something to do with the nat excemt, or it might just be default behaviour?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks in advance,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Rasmus&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Mar 2019 14:34:31 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/unexpected-access-through-acl/m-p/1159302#M877904</guid>
      <dc:creator>blueoceanventure</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-03-11T14:34:31Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Unexpected access through ACL</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/unexpected-access-through-acl/m-p/1159303#M877905</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Rasmus&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;That is normal behaviour. What i am a bit confused about is if you want http access to be allowed from the DMZ but not to the inside why bother with an acl at all ?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;For traffic to flow from a lower to a higher security you need 2 things - &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;1) NAT - which you have taken care of with your exemption&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;2) an access-list allowing that traffic - which you have done. &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;If you want to stop this either &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;1) remove the acl from the dmz interface (altho you may be using this acl for other reasons) &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;2) deny traffic from the dmz to the inside in your access-list first and then permit any eg. &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;access-list dmz_in deny ip 172.16.5.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.5.0 255.255.255.0 &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;access-list dmz_in permit ip 172.16.5.0 255.255.255.0 any&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;where 172.16.5.0/24 is DMZ subnet and 192.168.5.0/24 is inside subnet.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Jon&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Jan 2009 14:59:04 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/unexpected-access-through-acl/m-p/1159303#M877905</guid>
      <dc:creator>Jon Marshall</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2009-01-08T14:59:04Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Unexpected access through ACL</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/unexpected-access-through-acl/m-p/1159304#M877908</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi Jon,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks for your reply.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;OK. I just thought that "any-traffic" from a lower sec. to a higher. didn't get through.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I will follow your advice number 2.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks again.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Rasmus&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Jan 2009 11:29:27 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/unexpected-access-through-acl/m-p/1159304#M877908</guid>
      <dc:creator>blueoceanventure</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2009-01-09T11:29:27Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Unexpected access through ACL</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/unexpected-access-through-acl/m-p/1159305#M877909</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;That is exactly what the access list does. Traffic from lower to higher will no flow automatically, you'll need an ACL. &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Without ACL, traffic from high to low works (might need NAT), from low to high is blocked.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Jan 2009 09:52:05 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/unexpected-access-through-acl/m-p/1159305#M877909</guid>
      <dc:creator>marcelnjkoks</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2009-01-12T09:52:05Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

