I have the following: redundant ASA5520s on v8.2(1)proxy server/web filter for blocking access to websites for staff/studentsusers who want to use SkypeCisco Catalyst 4507 corea dozen VLANs for staff/student/WiFi etcCisco core policy that routes 80/443 to transparent proxy on a WiFi VLAN Windows desktops have direct proxy settings in IE .Pretty much all outbound ports are closed with 80/443 and a handful of specifics for various things open. Because of this Skype attempts to use 80/443 which are sent to the proxy server but bnecause they're not HTTP/HTTPS they cannot be understood. Skype attitude is to open 1024-65535 which is just plain stupid!
There's no way to specify which port(s) Skype uses for outbound. I tried opening 33000-33099 which worked perfectly for 2-3 devices (Win laptop, iPad) but others failed all the time.I've seen people mention using an AIP-SSM module in the ASA for blocking Skype (and other things eg torrents). Is it possible to use this module to allow Skype eg on ports 1024-65535 whilst blocking any other application from using those ports?
I'm trying to build different content security scenarios for a potential deployment of ASA5500-X series firewall with CX module and ran into a trivial problem. A simple access policy has been configured to deny Skype. It's as simple as it sounds. To my surprise I don't see that it is being enforced.I have all my pending changes committed, events are now showing with hits, see attached print screens. Tried to start Skype on my PC with the source shown on the print screen it and don't see any effects of this policy.
As a side note, I know for sure that other type of filtering does work, i.e. I have configured a deny filter for gambling URL category and it seems to work nicely.
I've got an annoying problem with my ASA 5520.I have traffic going from the inside interface (security level 100) to the outside interface (security level 0) with a global PAT applied to the outside interface address for all inside traffic - and I can't seem to traceroute through the firewall.The ruleset is simple - basically, allow any IP from inside to outside. The NAT is simple - PAT all traffic unless exempted to the IP address of the outside interface.If I do the trace from my internet edge router it works fine - so I know it's not soemthing my uplinks are filtering - but if I do it through the firewall, I get perfect responses until the hop where it hits the firewall interface - then nothing.Is there something I am missing that I need to do to allow traceroute to just work with all the rest of the traffic?
Belkin N450 Router. I want to restrict Internet access completely but allow LAN access to a shared drive for a particular computer on my wireless network. I have gone into the web based set up page and under access controls have enabled and added this computer to the list. I have blocked http, https, ftp and nntp. I don't know if this is enough. The reason I am asking is that I am in Iraq right now and I want to allow my fellow team members access to the wireless for using viber on their iphones but one cat even though he has hardwired internet wants to continuously suck off my wireless for his computer to download stuff since I paid for faster internet. I am trying to do this quietly and still allow him access to the shared drives on the LAN. Sooooo If I block him just outright will he still have access to the drives or do I need to pick and choose like I did above and if I need to pick and choose did I miss anything other then pop3 email and imap?
block skype 5.1 in my network. This version of skype doesn't need Administrator rights to be installed. In my network there are 2 ways to Internet, one filtered by a PIX 525 ver 6.3(3) and the other by a ASA 5510 ver 8.3(2). No IPS system present on my network.
I've recently had to move an AS400 system behind an internal ASA firewall and now users are unable to browse to it.The ASA is running Version 8.2(5)? I get these messages: Sep 11 2012 17:09:59: %ASA-7-710005: UDP request discarded from 172.19.241.35/137 to outside:172.19.241.255/137?Is there a way to enable these ports without enabling NAT?No VPN's involved, just an inside and outside eth interfaces?
I have a 7100 router that has some servers behind it. I need to translate each server to a public IP. The only thing is that between the outside world and the router is an ASA. We have a small data center where the ASA is connected to a core switch on the inside and the ISP on the outside. How would I do the NAT/PAT translations on the 7100 and then have them pass through the ASA? for example:
I am trying to configure Zone Based Firewall (IOS 15.2T) on Cisco 881 router for IPv6. Current setup is simple:
Zone: LAN --> WAN zone security LAN zone security WAN ! class-map type inspect match-any Internet-cmap match protocol dns match protocol http match protocol https [ code ] ........
Current configuration behaves as expected for IPv4, but blocks all IPv6 traffic. If zone-security is removed from WAN interface IPv6 works normally (connected to Internet). As soon as zone-security is enabled on WAN interface all IPV6 traffic is discarded when connecting to Internet from local LAN.
Error messages on console: Half-open Sessions source destination tcp SIS_OPENING/TCP_SYNSENT
Are there any special settings for ZBF which should be turned on for IPv6 protocol?
We had an ASA 5510 as a firewall in our environment, and there is a requirement to access an ftps server from our location. Currently from the server location they configured everything by allowing our public ip to their server and gave the following details to access ftp.Please suggest which traffic needs to be allowed in our ASA to access the ftp server address as mentioned above. From my initial analysis, it's found that 989 port is also enabled for the access, but that was not mentioned by them.
Let me start by saying that I'm just starting to study for CCNA, so the ASA seems to be a bit above me yet. The ASA's we are using is for VPN to our corporate office and only allowing access to our Citrix environment, so no direct internet allowed. We have a person who works in the remote office who has need for a caption telephone that requires direct access to the internet. The phone only supports DHCP, and getting the ASA to do an ARP reservations is proving difficult. For now I wrote an access list to allow it's DHCP address out but it still isn't working. The access list I wrote is:
access-list 101 extended permit ip host xxx.xxx.xxx.124 any log access-list 101 extended permit ip any any access-group 101 out interface outside
When I do a show access-list I'm seeing that traffic is hitting the access list as the hit counter has increased. When I do a show conn I'm seeing one of the IP's that the phone should have access to, however the flags are: saA, so I'm assuming they are not getting a response. According to the manufacturer, only outbound connections are needed, no incoming ports required. All traffic is TCP.
I am trying to switch out a cisco pix 501 firewall with a cisco ASA 5505 firewall. I am not very familiar with all of the commands for the firewalls and have always relied on a standard command line script that I use when building a new one. Unfortunately, my script is not working with the 5505. What I am doing wrong with the following script? I've masked public IP info with xxx.xxx.xxx and I run it right after restoring the firewall to the factory defaults. I am able to get out to the internet if I browse directly from one of the servers, but cannot access a web page when trying to browse to it from an outside network. [code]
Attached is our network diagram showing the details of our remote office and the corporate side which are connected via private fiber. The workstation (10.10.102.84) can ping the 10.20.0.31 IP address of the PBX but not the .30 address and I know if we can’t ping it we can’t remotely manage it. The 2811 router, ASA 5510 and the 6509-E can ping both IP addresses on the PBX. The ASA logs the error "Denied ICMP type=0, from laddr 10.20.0.30 on interface inside to 10.10.102.84: no matching session" when the workstation pings the .30 address.
We changed the default gateway of the PBX from 10.20.0.2 to 10.20.0.1 (2811 router) and we were able to ping both IP addresses from the workstation but the SIP trunks from the Internet stopped working (they NAT to the .30 address). Because calls may be forwarded from the PBX to the corporate network (via IP phones) we will eventually need to change the default gateway to10.20.0.1 and still need the Internet SIP trunks.
My two questions are, how do we resolve the issue of pinging the .30 address from the workstation and then when the time comes how do we resolve the issue with the SIP traffic reaching the .30 address when we change the default GW of the PBX to the 10.20.0.1 address of the 2811 router.
I have an ASA 5550 at our main site with an external ethernet interface to our ISP for internet access. I would like to allow 10.100.41.x/24 http / https access but block this network's access to all other internal networks including 172.17.x.x,, 10.100.1 - 40.x, and others. I'm having trouble identifying what IP address to use as the desitination for the permit rule for access to the internet. The rule that comes after the permit is to deny 10.100.41.x/24 access to internal network addresses.
I ' m not able to configure the asa 5510 to allow the multicast traffic to pass through ASA.The multicast traffic have to pass from inside interface to outside interface.Can I configure the multicast traffic to pass through asa with a static nat ?
We've had this firewall in place for years, and there haven't been changes to it in the past few months. Last week, however, we started having problems accessing one of our networks through the PIX, and after working with Microsoft, we determined it was an MTU issue. The maximum sized packet to the PIX and through the PIX is 1020 bytes, and it doesn't matter if the packets are sourced from a server or the PIX itself. From the server, we can ping 1500 byte packets to the core switch with no issues. All interfaces are set for 1500 byte.
I am having some issues with my ASA 5510 (running ASA 8.2) dropping ICMP unreachable-fragmentation-required-but-df-bit-set type messages coming in on the outside interface. I have the following entry in the ACL for the outside interface:access-list outside_acl extended permit icmp any interface outside and there are no other entries in that list that should take precedence and drop the packet. Pings from outside to the ASA work when this ACE is present and do no when it is absent so it is clearly taking effect. I see the following entries in the debug log when sending a large non-fragmentable packet (that would cause an intermediate router to send back this ICMP response) out to the internet through the ASa,As far as I can tell I am not running ICMP inspection; I don't want it to do any stateful magic here since the outgoing traffic would have been ordinary data from another protocol and would not have caused an outgoing ICMP connection to be built to match against.
I'm usually not working with this product, but this is what I'm trying to do.I have 2 internal networks setup on our Cisco ASA 5505 firewall. (not done by me, I'm a new to this product)I'm trying to access a server on one network from a PC located on the other internal network. (preferable through the web gui)When I try "Packet Tracer" from interface "Trust4" it fails on the NAT phase.(Source ip: 10.0.4.99, Destination ip: 10.0.6.99) When I check the NAT rule, it says: Type Source Interface AddressDynamic any outside outside.
I'm a college student working on a lab involving a Cisco PIX 501 Firewall.
My project involves 1 computer and a firewall. My goal is to use the firewall to allow access to the internet for that computer which uses a static IP 192.168.1.5 and ONLY for that IP address. The firewall is connected to the internet.
I have the computer hooked up to the firewall with the serial and using hyper terminal to enter commands. I think I need to use access lists in order to deny traffic on those ports for those particular hosts. I can't figure out exactly how I need to set it up.
What I need to do is permit internet access for 192.168.1.5 alone. Any other IP should not be able to access the internet.
I tried:
access-list 1 permit tcp host 192.168.1.5 any eq 80 access-group 1 in interface inside
I cannot access the internet using the computer with 192.168.1.5. The goal is to be able to access with that IP and no other.
I am using an ASA5510 for internal firewalling in my QA environment. How do I allow RDP from one subnet to those protected by the firewall? Preferably using the ASDM.
We have a Cisco ASA 5520 and Web sense. I added a filter but it seems like it is still not allowing us to access a certain website from most of the machines however some machines with the same configuration work on the DMZ. Accessing website tells us:
"Firefox has detected that the server is redirecting the request for this address in a way that will never complete".
I have a computer behind the ASA 5505 firewall. The computer needs to access Microsoft Activation Server. Reading some website information, I need to allow a huge list of servers that basically points to www and https traffic. Therefore, looking at this heavy requirements, I prefer to allow this computer to navigate to any https or http (www) server outside of the firewall.I have included my current asa 5505 configuration. [code]
The original goal was to block "Mumble/Murmur" (a voip app) traffic, which runs on TCP/UDP 64738, both inbound and outbound, except to a certain host (63.223.117.170).
However, when nothing I tried seemed to make a difference, just to troubleshoot, I decided to try blocking all inbound traffic. I first disconnected ethernet port 0/0 to ensure that it was cabled correctly and the outside interface went down when I did. That worked as expected, so I confirmed I had the right interface and it was cabled correctly.
I then applied a "any any deny ip" rule as the first element in the outside interface access_list, as you can see below. However, it appears to have had no real effect and the hit count is very low (it should be astronomical).
show ver Cisco Adaptive Security Appliance Software Version 9.0(2) Device Manager Version 7.1(2) Compiled on Thu 21-Feb-13 13:10 by builders System image file is "disk0:/asa902-k8.bin"
With regarding to the firewall ASA5520, i'm using it in my network, all the confiuration are properly configured and working but with the use of proxy address in internet explorer(e.:206.53.155.129/3128) all the blocked contents as easily accessible simply it bypass all the network through firewall.so will u guide me to block the proxy servers.
i bought a cisco 2950 series switch to play around with and im trying to set it up to SSH. I have google'd a bit on how to do this and i've sort of hit a wall... i have downloaded the cryptographic image from cisco's website, installed a TFTP server (think this is where my issue lies) but when i do the copy tftp flash global command i keep getting the error accessing "xxxx" message.I have tried allowing the server through windows firewall, disabling windows firewall, allowing access through the router..
We have a Cisco wireless infrastructure in place that includes a guest network with its own subnet that is a sub interface of the inside interface on our ASA 5520. There are no routes for it to be allowed access to the internal subnets. So it can only access the internet. This is primarily used by the public, but we have several non employee personnel that we only want to give internet access and force them to access the internal network through our clientless SSL vpn portal or through other internet facing internal resources such as webmail.I have done packet traces from within the ASA and the break appears to be there is no ACL allowing the traffic back into the network once the web resource replies to the request and the traffic is attempting to come back into the network from the web resource. Is that as clear as mud?
I know that this has to be a common problem and a way around this is to allow the guest wireless network access to the internal network but only for the select resources that they require. And that this can be done seemlessly by network specific routes and or alternate DNS entries, but I would like to keep this simple and just allow them to access the web resource, webmail and VPN, from the guest wireless using internet DNS servers without route trickery.
I have two asa 5520 firewalls. one at my primary data center connected to our production Internet feed, and one at my fail over data center connected to a backup internet feed. I was wondering if there was an easy way to keep the firewall rules in sync between the two firewalls. We have failover with our isp that will move our public facing address block from our primary site to our dr site in the event of a disaster so the ip addresses will not change if we were to have to fail over to the DR site. currently i just have to do any changes that i make on the fail over server but would like a way to at least simi-automat this if not fully automat this so that i can eliminate the possibility of human error of a change happening at primary but never getting don at DR.
I have cisco ASA 5510 with ios version 7.07 & all users are browsing the internet via PAT through ASA. i want to block some sites/URLs like facebook, yahoo etc.
I have a asa5520 with five Internet IP.One for the internet interface and the others are static maped to dmz hosts. It runs rightly until yesterday.Now it will lose the connection to the gateway many times everyday and the dmz hosts can not connect to internet any time. configuration(simplified):
! interface GigabitEthernet0/0 nameif internet security-level 0
[Code]....
I called ISP to check,when ISP clear their router's ARP, the asa will lose the connection at the same time and then the ISP's router couldn't learn the ASA's MAC. After I 'clear arp' manually,The ISP's router can learn the ASA's MAC and the connection recovered,but the DMZ's cann't access internet still (of course,There is no problem between DMZ and ASA ,I ping the internet gateway from DMZ host and can not get any reply.).
We have 2 x ASA5520 and I upgraded this to 8.2.2 last year, I see 8.2.5 and now 8.4 is out. If we are having no issues, is it best just to leave it as it is? I can see a couple of features I may find useful in 8.2.5, but 8.4 seems like a huge jump and a risky one too.
