We have changed back to syn-cookie now for ZPP but thresholds are much higher than those used in DP. I have queried here as well before.Īfter that we changed ZPP to RED and I see the logs which I stated above. First level team was not able to identify this issue. I guess that is expected according to how the PA process packets, but it took a while to figure this out and engaging threat team. ZPP - Syn-cookies was enabled with activation threshold of 1.ĭP - Syn-Cookies was enabled with activation threshold of 1Īs for above ZPP was being processed likely before DP there were no logs of syn-cookie sent " DoS do not generate logs". But the process on how reach at those values is not widely understood by most. ![]() We had been trying to implement DP but that is not as straight forward as implementing security policies, and documentation mostly shows how to create a DP policy/profile. What additional questions can I answer for do not disagree agree with you, let me explain what had happened. You asked why things have occurred and I believe I have properly answered them, as well as explained WHY this configuration should be implemented, based on my PS experience and based on PANW best practices. We seemed to have moved away from the original request of your query. ![]() SYN Cookies should also be used for DoS in case that was not clear. Each packet sent back or forth in the connection only makes sense in the context of that conversation. A more accurate description would be conversation. then DO NOT CREATE ONE, and logs will equally NOT be generated for UNWANTED traffic. Answer: The word connection is really not the best choice to describe TCP/IP connections. One month later, they were implemented by Jeff Weisberg for SunOS. if you do not want that session to be created. SYN cookies were created in September 1996, by Daniel J. So someone from the Internet MUST be compliant is ensuring it responds to a 3 why handshake to make it through the ZPP and then you, as the FW Admin, determine IF a session from that Internet user should be allowed to connect inside of your network. Why would they? Logs are done as END of session and DoS can PREVENT a session from even needing to started, if the packet does not do what you want it to do. ![]() So I do not understand the comment about DoS do not generate logs. Run the following commands to protect the back end servers. The following two temporary workarounds can resolve this issue: Method 1. internet traffic inbound is mostly TCP and TCP is best controlled by Syn Cookie.ĭoS protection controls IF a session needs to established (that is happens before security policies are even evaluated). When you receive slow POST attack as described in Layer 7 DDoS, this issue can be resolved by installing NetScaler software release 9.2 52.8 nCore or later or 9.3 48.6 nCore or later. all the bad traffic is trying to get inside of the FW and the ZPP regulates how much is allowed in. What are your expectations of what and how the FW should work vs how it actually works? I think the question I need to ask here is.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |