<?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: PDM vs ASDM in Network Security</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/pdm-vs-asdm/m-p/885630#M973251</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Yes thanks - thats exactly right.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;It just seems strange that such a handy feature has been removed. It seems a backwards step to me.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Unfortunately I have configured network groups containing inside addresses. It seemed logical to group inside and outside network groups...&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;So you would permit access from an "outside-group" to an "inside group"&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;It would then be PDM's job to recognise if an (inside,outside) NAT was in place an amend the config accordingly.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;In fact PDM used to create reference groups to tie the two together...&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;For example, you permit access to an inside group: &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;object-group network INSIDE-SERVERS &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;network-object 192.168.1.1 &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;network-object 192.168.1.2 &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;network-object 192.168.1.3 &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;And PDM automatically creates a "reference" (_ref) group that uses the valid outside NAT addresses: &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;object-group network INSIDE-SERVERS_ref &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;network-object 10.20.30.1&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;network-object 10.20.30.2&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;network-object 10.20.30.3&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The group ending in "_ref" is the one used in inbound access-lists.&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;Paul&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 23 Oct 2007 09:23:50 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>cisco_moderator</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2007-10-23T09:23:50Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>PDM vs ASDM</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/pdm-vs-asdm/m-p/885628#M973249</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;We previously used PDM for PIX version 6 to manage firewall NAT and access rules. From version 7 they introduced the ASDM interface and we would like to take advantage of the new features.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Previously in version 6 we would define a static (inside,outside) NAT and create a corresponding access rule to permit access from the outside (typically to permit remote support from a software supplier - RDP / pcAnywhere for example.)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;This would result in the following config:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;static (inside,outside) 10.20.30.111 192.168.1.1 netmask 255.255.255.255&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The access rule entered into PDM would permit access to the inside address. (See attachment)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;PDM with version 6 was intelligent enough to adjust the access-list command accordingly for the outside NAT address:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;access-list outside_access_in extended permit tcp 10.20.30.0 255.255.255.0 host 10.20.30.111 eq 3389&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Note the destination host has been replaced with the valid outside NAT address - even though the inside name was specified in PDM.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Unfortunately in version 8 this is not the case. If you permit access to an inside name via ASDM - even if a valid (inside,outside) NAT is present the access-list command it not adjusted:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;access-list outside_access_in extended permit tcp 10.20.30.0 255.255.255.0 host 192.168.1.1 eq 3389&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Any suggestions would be appreciated.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Paul&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt; &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Mar 2019 11:29:02 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/pdm-vs-asdm/m-p/885628#M973249</guid>
      <dc:creator>cisco_moderator</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-03-11T11:29:02Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: PDM vs ASDM</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/pdm-vs-asdm/m-p/885629#M973250</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;ASDM works a little differently (it's not that is not intelligent enough).&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;If you want to enable access to an internal host then you configure the access-list to allow access to its NATed address, not the internal.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;For example:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;instead of &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;access-list outside_access_in extended permit tcp 10.20.30.0 255.255.255.0 host 192.168.1.1 eq 3389 &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;you have:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;access-list outside_access_in extended permit tcp 10.20.30.0 255.255.255.0 host &lt;OUTSIDE&gt; eq 3389 &lt;/OUTSIDE&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Is this what you mean?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Oct 2007 08:58:26 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/pdm-vs-asdm/m-p/885629#M973250</guid>
      <dc:creator>pjhenriqs</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2007-10-23T08:58:26Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: PDM vs ASDM</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/pdm-vs-asdm/m-p/885630#M973251</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Yes thanks - thats exactly right.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;It just seems strange that such a handy feature has been removed. It seems a backwards step to me.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Unfortunately I have configured network groups containing inside addresses. It seemed logical to group inside and outside network groups...&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;So you would permit access from an "outside-group" to an "inside group"&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;It would then be PDM's job to recognise if an (inside,outside) NAT was in place an amend the config accordingly.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;In fact PDM used to create reference groups to tie the two together...&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;For example, you permit access to an inside group: &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;object-group network INSIDE-SERVERS &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;network-object 192.168.1.1 &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;network-object 192.168.1.2 &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;network-object 192.168.1.3 &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;And PDM automatically creates a "reference" (_ref) group that uses the valid outside NAT addresses: &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;object-group network INSIDE-SERVERS_ref &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;network-object 10.20.30.1&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;network-object 10.20.30.2&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;network-object 10.20.30.3&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The group ending in "_ref" is the one used in inbound access-lists.&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;Paul&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Oct 2007 09:23:50 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/pdm-vs-asdm/m-p/885630#M973251</guid>
      <dc:creator>cisco_moderator</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2007-10-23T09:23:50Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: PDM vs ASDM</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/pdm-vs-asdm/m-p/885631#M973252</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;To be honest I have began learning these things with ASDM so I kind of got the inverse reaction to PDM.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;For me it seems logical that you allow traffic to the outside address, because I see things as interface related. First you allow traffic to the outside interface then we translate it to the inside and that's it. It's just a matter of what you are used to I think.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I don't know if Cisco has some kind of translator for the configs, but it might be worth checking that out. I'll be honest, I have done all the migrations manually.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regards,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Paulo&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Oct 2007 09:39:36 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/pdm-vs-asdm/m-p/885631#M973252</guid>
      <dc:creator>pjhenriqs</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2007-10-23T09:39:36Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: PDM vs ASDM</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/pdm-vs-asdm/m-p/885632#M973253</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Many thanks Paulo,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I guess I have two choices - redesign my groups to focus on the outside NAT addresses - or stick with V6 and PDM. I guess I have just had it easy with V6! Another big concept change for me was the removal of the PDM location feature.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;With PDM objects have a location associated - for example you define a host / group - and you are asked where it resides (inside or outside for example). With ASDM all object are placed in the same place. It has no concept of location. I guess this is the root cause of my problem.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Maybe I will stick with V6 after all...&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks for your time.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Paul&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Oct 2007 10:04:19 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/pdm-vs-asdm/m-p/885632#M973253</guid>
      <dc:creator>cisco_moderator</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2007-10-23T10:04:19Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

