On a Cisco ASA 5520. I have 2 interfaces that are the same security level. I need hosts on 1 of these interfaces to be able to get to a specific IP and port on the other but I DON'T want to blanket enable 'same-security-traffic permit inter-interface" I have added an ACL inbound on the interface allowing the desired traffic and inbound on the other for return traffic and it simply doesn't work.
I have issue with traffic passing between same security level interfaces. I want to control traffic between same security level interfaces with ACL. Even no restriction, traffic does not go through. [code]
I tried to access server from THREE network to web server at FOUR network I have no response. In sh xlate output it shows "PAT Global 10.124.104.254 (28889) Local 10.124.103.1(2922) " I am not sure what else should I do. I add both same-security-level commands and it is the same.
Verifying the operation of the ASA when configured with Global access rules. Does the global rule overide the interface security levels? According to the ASA order of operations, the interface specific rule get's processed first and then the global rules, but It does not say anything about interface security levels. Observing an ASA in production that has global rules configured I see that an interface with a security level of 50 that has no rules applied to it, passing traffic to the outside interface (security level 0) drops the traffic. Syslog shows that it hits the global access rule implicit deny. Does the implicit permit any to any less secure interface not apply?
I am trying to configure site to site vpn between Cisco ASA and Cisco router 3825, I need to establish the vpn connection with an interface that has security level of 90.I followed the procedure shown in the following link: URL.
I'm trying to implement some best practices for ASA running on Software Release 8.2 and had a question about the default security-level behavior. Let's say I have 3 interfaces...
I have an ACL on the inside interface allowing http access to anywhere. Because of the ACL, the implicit higher to lower security level access is nullified. Correct?
I do NOT have any ACL on the dmz interface applied. So, would the servers in the dmz be allowed outbound access to the Internet due to the default higher to lower security level behavior?
I have an ASA 5520 8.2(5) with ACS 5.1, I made the configutation of Authentication and is working well, now how I can configure the authorization and get into the privileged level 15 mode directly.
We have a block of addresses assigned to us by our ISP. We need to assign one of these addresses to a vendor we use for traffic to one of their internal devices. Lets say the address we gave them out of that block of addresses is 1.2.3.4
How do I add that address to the outside interface so that when traffic s sent to it that the traffic actually gets to the ASA as right now when we send traffic to that address it doean't make it to the ASA.
I have ASA 5505 that has two inside security level 100 interfaces and an outside interface.On the inside interface we have corporate domain subnet with DC and 30 hosts. On the inside2 interface I have few servers that runs specific application important for our business needs, and dumb terminals that are connected to them.I have a laptop user that periodically needs access from our corporate vlan1 to one of the servers on inside 2 vlan via remote desktop or some other remote viewer client,so he can view reports etc.I have enabled same-security-traffic intra-interface command and added nat exempt command pointing specific laptop host machine to that specific server.
Now my main concern is regarding security. This user carries his laptop home, browses the web, puts USB memory, and you can imagine how this machine is susceptible to all kind of malicious software. Inside2 vlan is very important and until now it has been a very secure environment.This is no longer the case since all traffic between this inside sec level 100 vlan host and corresponding inside2 sec level 100 server is now allowed because of the enabled same level interface traffic and nat exemption rule. Do I have another solution that would allow communication based on just a tcp port number for this host? Something like port forwarding from outside to inside Vlan interface?
I cannot seem to ping from the outside of my 5520 firewall to an inside network. I have a single physical outside interface connected to a Layer 2 switch, with a laptop connected to it. This is on network 10.11.131.0/28. From there, I cannot ping to the inside interface (which is a sub interface on G0/0) with network 10.11.130.0/24/ For some reason, it doesnt work.
Now. I had access-lists in place, but have removed them for testing and it still doesnt work. I have set the security level of inside and outside to 100, and entered the same-security-traffic permit inter-interface command - still no joy. Below is the relevant configuration.
Recently our network experience a Internal DoS attack. One internal server ( the network/security team doesnt have any access to the adninistration of these server) starts to send a lot of DNS bogus request to some DNS servers on the Internet. With sh conn detail we saw the IP of these server and blocked it with an ACL in the Internal ASA 5520 interface. After that, the server team disconnect the server, and made their job cleaning these infected device. Everything goes normal again....
Today, the same server starts again with the same problem. But a lot worst thant the first time. The ASA starts to drops packets in the internal interface, the overruns was increasing dramatically ( like 10000 per second), the asp-drop table shows the same amount of traffic than interface overruns in the ACL-Drop line , and the CNT blocks for 16xxx with sh blocks was in zero. The sh acess-list INSIDE shows near 9 million hints in the line that deny the DNS request from the server to the Internet. Again, we disconnect the server and the problem was solved by the server team.
It seems that our ASA cant handle in their internal interface the amount of traffic that these server send outbound. IS there anyway to raise the blocks in the firewall? What is the best way to deny the servers connections ( ACL, or MPF or threat detection maybe), and avoid the ASA interface overruns even when the server sends these large amount of request.
i have a Problem with SNMP on the ASA Outside Interface. I want to monitor the Interface via SNMP (linkup, link down). I have a Active/Passive Cluster running on 8.4.2 and configured SNMP (v1) for Test on the Outside Interface. It's not that hard but when i try to test my Configuration with (peerless) SNMP Tester the Interface doesn't respond. Did i forget to configure something? Searched the forum but didn't find anything useful.
I have 2 dmz interfaces(dmz1 and dmz2) with security level 50. I am able to ping the hosts on dmz2 from dmz1. I am running a service on a dmz2 host on port 82 but i am not able to access that service from dmz1. Also, i have an inside interface at security lever 99 which is able to access that service.
Also, i have defined the following command to allow same security level communication.
We have an ASA5520 firewall, IOS 8.0(4), running in routed mode with an operational Cisco 2821 router to ASA-5520 L2L IPsec VPN.:All Internet searches explain how to enable a L2L IPsec VPN from the LOWER security-level interface to a HIGHER security-level interface- and this is how our setup is configured and it is operational and working fine.:We now have a need to setup another L2L IPsec VPN tunnel on the same firewall BUT this time traffic will be arriving on the HIGHER security-level interface destination is to a LOWER security-level interface.:Is it possible to enable a L2L IPsec VPN tunnel between a HIGHER security-level interface to a LOWER security-level interface?
Quote from the RV180 manual; 'By default, all access from the insecure WAN side is blocked from accessing the secure LAN, except in response to requests from the LAN or DMZ.'
Does this mean a general access-rule for the firewall blocking all inbound (WAN --> LAN) data is not required?
Do I need the security plus license to do HA with two 5520's?I was told by our purchasing department that the 5520 was supposed to be able to do HA out of the box, but when I look I see only the VPN + license. Does that mean I can download the security plus license? Or do I even need it on the 5520.
I have an ASA 5520 running 8.0(3) with two Subinterfaces configured like this: ================================= interface GigabitEthernet0/1 nameif inside security-level 100 no ip address ! interface GigabitEthernet0/1.72 description VLAN 72
[code]....
(notice that they have the same security-level)I need to control the traffic between them with ACLs so I in ASDM unchecked "enable traffic between two or more interfaces with same security level" and "enable traffic between two or more hosts connected to the same interface"Now I cannot ping from one Vlan to the other, as expected,,, but I tried many different ACLs and I cannot ping or telnet to the other side from either one.
I have a DMZ (50) from where I need to allow some protocols to inside zone (level 0). I am doing that with ACL, but after having done that the implicit security level rule to lower level (outsite level 0) is not working anymore, I guess by the implicity deny after the acl. I'd need allow traffic to the outside zone from DMZ, as well as the inspect traffic from the inside one. Is there anyway to have both ACL and Security levels?
If not, what do I need to do to just allow some protocols going to higher level and leave the higher-to-lower traffic inspected allowed, same schema as we have with security levels.
I am currently using g0/3 for failover between my two ASA5520's. I would like to move that to the management interface to free up g0/3 for a second DMZ segment. are there any implications to doing this live other than i would only have a single ASA during the move?
From ASA 5520 we tested the interface failover it not working even the interface are getting monitor .
primary is active.
Manually we shut the outside interface of the primary device configuration is getting reflecting in secondary as outside interface shut. Interface failover not happen.
ii All the interface are getting monitor when we gave command sh failover. even though when we shut outside interface failove not happening.
how to do the interface failover in ASA 8.4 version.
I know this issue probably has been beat to death, but I have yet to find the answer to my situation. We recently upgraded from a PIX515e to ASA5520. Shortly after the install I noticed a problem with the servers on our DMZ. This problem was NOT present with our old 515e. The problem is that there seems to be a communication problem between servers on the DMZ, specifically when I try to open the web server homepage from my mail server, I get time-outs. When I ping between the two in either direction, I get time-outs. This might seem trivial, but I have other data servers on the DMZ that need to communicate between themselves.
When we question the tech that performed the install, his answer was that there might be a problem with the switch the servers are connected to, or the servers might have a virus. He stated the process of ping should never involve the DMZ interface. And yes, our DMZ interface IP is the gateway for the servers. Now, if the DMZ (ASA) should never come into play with a ping, why when I turned on logging did I receive the error below? It sounds to me that the ping is going through the interface. Here are a few of the errors on the DMZ with the specific server IPs.
july 13 2012 12:50:04 106014 10.10.0.10 10.10.0.5 Deny inbound icmp src dmz1 10.10.0.10 dst dmz1 10.10.0.5 type 8, code 0
The ping problem was only used as an example the demonstrate that there is a comm problem on the DMZ. ASA is running in router mode.
We have an ADSM (version 5.2(3) ) . In ASA ( version 7.2(3)) we are working with routing, access restriction and configuring IPSEC vpn with integration to our AD. We need to get two diferent profiles: one for networking administrators, who are going to manage routing, acls and have the root for ASA, and the other profile is going to be for the vpn administrators. As I read from the ASDM 6.0 user guide is posible define command privilege level. So do you consider posible to define a particular level for all the command related with ipsec vpn (Create, Modify and Delete) and asociate that particular level with the user for vpn administration.
I have inherited an ASA 5520. In doing some auditing of the setup, I have noticed a Static Route that has the inside interface of the ASA as the Gateway IP. I am trying to understand the purpose of this route or why a route would be setup this way.
Example Static Route: Inside 10.xx.31.0 255.255.255.0 10.xx.xx.10 (10.xx.xx.10 is the inside interface of ASA)
We have ASA 5520 firewall.For broadband Internet access, we have T1 Router(edge router provided by ISP) which provides public IP's 198.24.210.224 / 29. We have usable public IP's 198.24.210.226 - 198.24.210.230 with default gateway 198.24.210.225. We assigned 198.24.210.230 255.255.255.0 to the outside interface.
If we connect the ASA 5520 outside interface directly to T1 router, can all packets with destination addresses 198.24.210.224/29 reach the outside interface without using other device like another router or switches?I just assume that only packets with destination address 198.24.210.230(outside interface ip) can reach the outside interface from the edge router.Is it wrong assumption? If it is correct, then is there any way to route all packets with destination address 198.24.210.224/29 to the outside interface?
We already have a subnet defined to inside interface and is in produciton. the default gateway is this interface ip. In that setup now I have to add one more subnet and as the first subnet is been defined in ASA indside interface, I have to assign secondary Ip to the inside interface so that new subnet users can easily reach here and go outside.
We want to achieve a load balancing scenario using Virtual IP on DMZ interface on a Cisco ASA 5520.
The IPs we are going to use on DMZ are 10.15.1.2 and 10.15.1.3
These IPs are going to be NATted to all inside IPs.
Lets say our outside IP is X.X.X.X
This IP points to 10.15.1.2 and 10.15.1.3 with .2 being the primary and .3 being the secondary. When I hit the outside IP, it should point me to .2 and that .2 should take me to the inside IPs.
I'm trying to route all default traffic from my production environment through my ASA 5520 on the "outside2" interface.The 5520 has a site to site VPN to our DR site on the "outside/inside" interfaces via one ISP. On another ISP, interfaces "outside2/inside2" go to the internet. When I make my 3750 stack default route for the inside2 interface IP I cannot get to the internet. When it is pointed to the inside interface on my 5505, I can.
I get the following errors when I try to open google.com from a production server:Why is the 5520 trying to use the "outside" interface instead of the "outside2" interface to go out?
I'm trying to attach tacacs server (ACS Version 5.2) in server group on ASA 5520 (Version 8.4). When I test connection in ASDM (Version 6.4) between ASA and ACS it fails. The log message on ASA is:
%ASA-2-106016: Deny IP spoof from (10.8.27.126) to 10.8.48.10 on interface inside.
