<?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 FWSM security levels concept in Network Security</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/fwsm-security-levels-concept/m-p/850602#M955974</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi all,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I have 5 different VLANs created on the FWSM each one with different security levels. I have version 3.7 in single context mode and NAT disabled.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;From traffic flowing from one interface with security level of 100 (called inside) to another with security level of 20 (called WEB) I need to create an access-list and apply it on the inside of the inside interface to permit traffic to the WEB interface, but I don't need to create an access-list on the WEB interface in order to permit the return traffic, is this correct?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;If I want that some host on the WEB interface have access to the inside host I need to create an access-list and apply it inside on the Web interface and I need to create an access-list on the inside interface in order to permit the return traffic? I am confused with the concept of security levels because I cannot see any advantage in defining different security levels.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regards&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 11 Mar 2019 11:56:08 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>vicente.madrigal</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2019-03-11T11:56:08Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>FWSM security levels concept</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/fwsm-security-levels-concept/m-p/850602#M955974</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi all,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I have 5 different VLANs created on the FWSM each one with different security levels. I have version 3.7 in single context mode and NAT disabled.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;From traffic flowing from one interface with security level of 100 (called inside) to another with security level of 20 (called WEB) I need to create an access-list and apply it on the inside of the inside interface to permit traffic to the WEB interface, but I don't need to create an access-list on the WEB interface in order to permit the return traffic, is this correct?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;If I want that some host on the WEB interface have access to the inside host I need to create an access-list and apply it inside on the Web interface and I need to create an access-list on the inside interface in order to permit the return traffic? I am confused with the concept of security levels because I cannot see any advantage in defining different security levels.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regards&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Mar 2019 11:56:08 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/fwsm-security-levels-concept/m-p/850602#M955974</guid>
      <dc:creator>vicente.madrigal</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-03-11T11:56:08Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: FWSM security levels concept</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/fwsm-security-levels-concept/m-p/850603#M955975</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Vicente &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;With a stateful firewall you do not need access-lists to allow the return traffic as that is what stateful firewalls do. So in your case &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Inside -&amp;gt; Web   - you only need access-list on inside interface &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Web -&amp;gt; Inside - you only need access-list on WEB interface. &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Note in the above 2 examples we are talking about where the connection is initiated from and not referring to return traffic.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;On standalone pix/asa devices traffic is allowed from a higher to a lower security interface without an access-list. Only the FWSM requires and access-list no matter what the security level. I admit this can be a bit confusing.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;HTH&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Jon&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2008 07:38:30 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/fwsm-security-levels-concept/m-p/850603#M955975</guid>
      <dc:creator>Jon Marshall</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2008-01-31T07:38:30Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: FWSM security levels concept</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/fwsm-security-levels-concept/m-p/850604#M955976</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks Jon,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I was confused because in a reguar ASA you don't need to configure the acces-list from a higher to a lower security interface and in the FWSM you  do need to apply an inboud access-list in the interfase no matter the security level.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;It looks to me that the concept of security level for the FWSM is no usefull at all.&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;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Feb 2008 16:11:31 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/fwsm-security-levels-concept/m-p/850604#M955976</guid>
      <dc:creator>vicente.madrigal</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2008-02-01T16:11:31Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

