<?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: inspection question... in Network Security</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/inspection-question/m-p/1022836#M918703</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Ahh Ok, Good to know the issue is solved now &lt;span class="lia-unicode-emoji" title=":slightly_smiling_face:"&gt;🙂&lt;/span&gt;&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;Farrukh&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:28:18 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Farrukh Haroon</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2008-06-09T20:28:18Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>inspection question...</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/inspection-question/m-p/1022833#M918700</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hello,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;We have recently migrated from an IPTABLES based (among other things) for NAT and firewalling to an ASA 5510.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;While the transition has been smooth there is an issue that has risen.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Some of the network people had in the past through IPTABLES NAT access to anything. In particular they use once in a while BGPPLAY (a java app) to view routes and BGP info. There was no problem when they use IPTABLES but now if they use the ASA as a NAT firewall, the java applet will fail to established a connection.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;NAT access for BGPLAY is open as it was before and I did assume that it will behave as before, obviusly it does not.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The first connection is to port 80, but the second is from the next port to 21174.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;This is not a related connection but a new one, works thorugh IPTABLES but not through the ASA.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Anyone has seen this behavior?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Miguel.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Mar 2019 12:57:01 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/inspection-question/m-p/1022833#M918700</guid>
      <dc:creator>alasinc</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-03-11T12:57:01Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: inspection question...</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/inspection-question/m-p/1022834#M918701</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Why don't you allow this connection by using an ACL? Is this new connection from the Client &amp;gt;&amp;gt; BGPPLAY Server or in the opposite direction. In the Client &amp;gt;&amp;gt; BGPPLAY Server direction it should be permitted as all higher &amp;gt;&amp;gt; lower security traffic is permitted by default. You can also use the 'established' command but this is not recommended due to security reasons.&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;Farrukh&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 09 Jun 2008 19:19:08 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/inspection-question/m-p/1022834#M918701</guid>
      <dc:creator>Farrukh Haroon</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2008-06-09T19:19:08Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: inspection question...</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/inspection-question/m-p/1022835#M918702</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Found the problem, it was not related to the ASA per say but an ancient access-list on an edge router that was not allowing traffic on the new network we were using.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Miguel.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:12:32 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/inspection-question/m-p/1022835#M918702</guid>
      <dc:creator>alasinc</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2008-06-09T20:12:32Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: inspection question...</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/inspection-question/m-p/1022836#M918703</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Ahh Ok, Good to know the issue is solved now &lt;span class="lia-unicode-emoji" title=":slightly_smiling_face:"&gt;🙂&lt;/span&gt;&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;Farrukh&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:28:18 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/inspection-question/m-p/1022836#M918703</guid>
      <dc:creator>Farrukh Haroon</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2008-06-09T20:28:18Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

