Article View: comp.security.firewalls
Article #409Migration to NG is NOT straight forward but is painful...
From: AK
Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 12:00
Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 12:00
43 lines
3453 bytes
3453 bytes
Hi, I would like to share with you my experience of working with FW1 & might like to hear yours. New installations of FW1 NG are working better than 4.x except integration problems with Win2k AD & OPSEC . The performance, licensing, SecureUpdate, logging, policy editor are worth praise. But all is not well if you are to upgrade from 4.x to NG. As NG is heavily relying upon SIC and internal CA for inter module communication. The object.c file is not downward compatible either and firewall objects contain references to internal CA. The first problem we encountered was that the installation process never asked about role of the server the only way to let it ask you is uninstall existing 4.x. The critical upgrade steps 'fw confmerge', 'fw checkobj' and 'fw cpmi_upgrade' are not well documented. Also if one have had ver 4.1 with vpn & internal CA then the upgraded NG will not run well and there will always be a problem in uploading the policy as is someway relies on old poor internal CA. Same is true about the converted firewall objects which will be carrying old object.c definition. Although conf directory contains multiple versions of object.c & rulebases.fws files still these files are also at other places (may be database,..) because simply replacing conf with a backed up conf (also NG) does not restore the old configuration. I also experiences that upgrading and existing NG object rulebase file with steps 'fw confmerge', 'fw checkobj' and 'fw cpmi_upgrade' is not possible. I even tried uninstalling all but conf directory without any success. I tried all different possible configuration for whole the week in non-production time but every time the upgraded NG was not working well and I had to rely on backup & second inst. of Win2k on the same system (thanks to Windows 2000 on disk backup option). The last night I had to do all the objects and rulebase Manually by going through old objects.c and snapshot bitmaps of old policy & NAT. And even then there are problems setting up SecuRemote through hybrid IKE and SMTP using NG security server and resources definition (for avoidinging spamming) So Checkpoint has lot of work to do if they want their customers to upgrade to NG. Regards, AK
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<QjsJ7.1680$RL6.53565@news.cpqcorp.net>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!paloalto-snf1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!news.compaq.com!news.cpqcorp.net!not-for-mailShow Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f922c,95d5f4ffe72cfbe4,start X-Google-Attributes: gidf922c,public X-Google-Thread: 101ffa,95d5f4ffe72cfbe4,start X-Google-Attributes: gid101ffa,public X-Google-Thread: 10ec9e,95d5f4ffe72cfbe4,start X-Google-Attributes: gid10ec9e,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-11-17 04:00:49 PST Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!paloalto-snf1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!news.compaq.com!news.cpqcorp.net!not-for-mail From: "AK" <aakamran@hotmail.com> Newsgroups: comp.security.firewalls,cp.products.securemote,cp.products.vpn-1 Subject: Migration to NG is NOT straight forward but is painful... Lines: 45 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Message-ID: <QjsJ7.1680$RL6.53565@news.cpqcorp.net> Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 13:00:47 +0100 NNTP-Posting-Host: 16.181.32.62 X-Complaints-To: abuse@Compaq.com X-Trace: news.cpqcorp.net 1005998448 16.181.32.62 (Sat, 17 Nov 2001 04:00:48 PST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 04:00:48 PST Organization: Compaq Computer Corporation