CPUG

The Check Point User Group

A Resource For The Check Point Community.  Fast.  Useful.  Independent.

1. CCSA/CCSE One-Week Dual-Certification Training Course with CPUG in San Francisco!
    Courses Starting 12/8, (2009) 1/19, 2/9, 3/9, 4/6, 5/4, 6/8, 7/6, 8/3.
2. Join Us On LinkedIn - We now have a CPUG group.


Go Back   CPUG: The Check Point User Group > Check Point Firewall-1/VPN-1 And Related Products > Topology Issues
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 2008-02-17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 2007-09-17
Location: Singapore
Posts: 161
Rep Power: 2
chuachongchee has an average reputation (10+)
Default Anti-Spoofing Internal Workings??

Hi All,

Jus wanna find out more on excatly how anti-spoofing works... this is my gut feel from my experience.. correct me if i'm wronng... here goes...

On internal designated interfaces, this will ensure that if x,y networks are behind the interfaces, only x,y networks will be allowed, the rest will be dropped..

On External designated interfaces, this will ensure that anything that is not designated internal will be dropped... lets say internal has x,y,z networks... anything designated external will drop the above mentioned, the rest are allowed...

This correct??
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 2008-02-17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 2005-08-29
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 1,670
Rep Power: 5
chillyjim has an average reputation (10+)
Send a message via AIM to chillyjim Send a message via Skype™ to chillyjim
Default Re: Anti-Spoofing Internal Workings??

You got it.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 2008-02-17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 2006-09-26
Posts: 821
Rep Power: 3
cciesec2006 has an average reputation (10+)
Default Re: Anti-Spoofing Internal Workings??

also wanted to add that Checkpoint calls it "anti-spoofing" while
cisco refers to as "Unicast Reversed-Path Forwarding" uRPF.

The other thing worth mentioning is that if you have an
environment where asymetric routing exists such as dual-ISP
connection for your Internet connection upstream. In that
case you may want to use "loose" mode instead of "strict"
mode.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 2008-02-17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 2007-09-17
Location: Singapore
Posts: 161
Rep Power: 2
chuachongchee has an average reputation (10+)
Default Re: Anti-Spoofing Internal Workings??

Quote:
Originally Posted by cciesec2006 View Post
also wanted to add that Checkpoint calls it "anti-spoofing" while
cisco refers to as "Unicast Reversed-Path Forwarding" uRPF.

The other thing worth mentioning is that if you have an
environment where asymetric routing exists such as dual-ISP
connection for your Internet connection upstream. In that
case you may want to use "loose" mode instead of "strict"
mode.
hmm.. hehe... doesnt cisco call this "Anti-Spoofing" too??!? Some time back when i still touched cisco products... i kinda remember i checked for Anti-spoof and configure it according to the KB... hehe

Another note... on Asymmetric routing.. isnt this so called not supported by Checkpoint?? This is so called a security breach isn't it??

On the HA cluster type... theres this "Support non-sticky connections."... isnt this the one that will allow Asymmectric to work when in so called HA environment??
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 2008-02-18
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 2005-08-29
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 1,670
Rep Power: 5
chillyjim has an average reputation (10+)
Send a message via AIM to chillyjim Send a message via Skype™ to chillyjim
Default Re: Anti-Spoofing Internal Workings??

Quote:
Originally Posted by chuachongchee View Post
hmm.. hehe... doesnt cisco call this "Anti-Spoofing" too??!? Some time back when i still touched cisco products... i kinda remember i checked for Anti-spoof and configure it according to the KB... hehe

The commands are reverse path forwarding, the feature is anti-spoofing.

Quote:
Another note... on Asymmetric routing.. isnt this so called not supported by Checkpoint?? This is so called a security breach isn't it??
Asymmetric routing is a bad thing in general. The case that cciesec brings up is a little different, but one would hope that your firewall is inside your ISPs so you don't have the issue.

For a truly statefull firewall, you cannot "support" asymmetric routing, because it breaks state.


Quote:
On the HA cluster type... theres this "Support non-sticky connections."... isnt this the one that will allow Asymmectric to work when in so called HA environment??
That has to due with keeping a connection passing through a given module for the duration of the connection in a clustered (aka active-active) environment.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are Off
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 00:24.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0