Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

fqdn in destination address field, is wrongly treated as an ip range. #435

Open
keisari-ch opened this issue Apr 13, 2024 · 1 comment
Open
Labels

Comments

@keisari-ch
Copy link

Describe the bug

Hi guys, im trying to establish a base code configuration with a bunch of rules.
Basically, i may have to use adresses with IP Netmask and FQDN's types (and URL Categories when i have to deal with some wildcards) in the security policies.

Basically the whole terraform side "seems" ok because i can easily apply the objects, and rule groups configuration to the target device groups on panorama, and the panorama commit is successful.

The problem is when i push de configuration to the devices (which here, are the Cloud NGFW appliances on Azure).

Below is the state description of an example rule which fails :

     {
        "action" = "allow"
        "applications" = toset([
          "any",
        ])
        "audit_comment" = ""
        "categories" = toset([
          "any",
        ])
        "data_filtering" = ""
        "description" = <<-EOT
        allow runner pods to access gitlab
        Source configuration file : /DG_NGFW/security_policies/post-rulebase/201.cloudplatform/r_cloudplatform_azfw.yml
        EOT
        "destination_addresses" = toset([
          "cdn.artifacts.gitlab-static.net",
          "gitlab.com",
        ])
        "destination_devices" = toset([
          "any",
        ])
        "destination_zones" = toset([
          "Public",
        ])
        "disable_server_response_inspection" = false
        "disabled" = false
        "file_blocking" = ""
        "group" = ""
        "group_tag" = ""
        "hip_profiles" = toset([])
        "icmp_unreachable" = false
        "log_end" = true
        "log_setting" = ""
        "log_start" = true
        "name" = "aks-runners-gitlab"
        "negate_destination" = false
        "negate_source" = false
        "negate_target" = false
        "schedule" = ""
        "services" = toset([
          "tcp-443",
        ])
        "source_addresses" = toset([
          "10.132.12.0/23",
          "10.132.24.0/22",
        ])
        "source_devices" = toset([
          "any",
        ])
        "source_users" = toset([
          "any",
        ])
        "source_zones" = toset([
          "Private",
        ])
        "spyware" = ""
        "tags" = tolist([
          "azure-firewall",
          "tf-managed",
        ])
        "target" = toset([])
        "type" = "universal"
        "url_filtering" = ""
        "uuid" = "6780e6f3-170d-458f-b256-31d24d51dc42"
        "virus" = ""
        "vulnerability" = ""
        "wildfire_analysis" = ""
      },

When i push the whole configuration to the 3 appliances, i get this error :

image

All of this despite the configuration being apparently ok :

Sec Pol Destination panel

FQDN Object

Expected behavior

Well, that should be pushed without any errors 😊

Current behavior

Apply/Panorama Commit ok / Push to device fails

Possible solution

No idea

Steps to reproduce

Create an address with type fqdn (as im typing, the name = fqdn, i will try with an alt name).
Create a rule using the fqdn object
Push to Cloud NGFW Device

Screenshots

Above

Context

This is part of a migration from a managed solution to a hub & spoke architecture on Azure using the palo managed service

@keisari-ch keisari-ch added the bug label Apr 13, 2024
@keisari-ch keisari-ch changed the title fqdn in destination address field, is wrongly trated as an ip range. fqdn in destination address field, is wrongly treated as an ip range. Apr 13, 2024
@keisari-ch
Copy link
Author

keisari-ch commented Apr 15, 2024

We can workaround this issue checking the following option in panorama settings :

"Share Unused Address and Service Objects with Devices"

Which is obviously a problem because of the limits difference between the managed devices on this panorama environment (hardware appliances versus cloud ngfw).

Created a case on the CSP.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant