[isalist] Re: 0x800733f5 error & order of polices issue
- From: "Steve Moffat" <steve@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "ISA Mailing List" <isalist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 15:04:18 -0300
Have you tried adding an https tunnel for that?
Have you tried an all out rule for it, just for log monitoring to see
what is different if it's successful?
From: isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Danny
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 2:07 PM
To: ISA Mailing List
Subject: [isalist] Re: 0x800733f5 error & order of polices issue
Jim,
I appreciate your educational tidbits, but when you are dealing with
humans and software sometimes assumptions are inevitable. In fact, it is
clear that you are not immune to making assumptions.
1) By stating the obvious that "Assumptions get you nowhere", you assume
that assuming is my favorite activity and always gets me positive
results
2) By providing a WSUS and AU 101, you assume that I did not understand
the difference between a WSUS client and an Internet-based Automatic
Update client, did not read the KB's, was not the one who installed
WSUS, and have no clue
3) By challenging my knowledge of who Amy is, you assume that I had no
idea who Amy is and didn't care. First of all, where did I not show
respect to Amy? Secondly, do you want all ISA list posts to begin with
"Yes, I know who Amy is, so um don't ask me"?
Anyway, yes, I did bring up some Microsoft pain points and I will
respond to any further responses offline. As you know this list has been
very flexible with OT posts, so my addition is nothing to call home
about.
Re: cutting off the thread, I would say 70% of the reply content is
redundant and has no value in the conversation. The archives should be
stored by threaded conversation, but I will respond in the format you
request.
I will analyze the ISAINFO output, but for future reference, can you
please direct me to documentation that will explain why the order of
polices is being ignored OR why I would not see all denied traffic in
the ISA 2004 SP2 monitoring default state (Log record type = Firewall or
Web Proxy & Log time = LiveConnection Status = live)?
Thanks,
...D
On 5/15/07, Jim Harrison <Jim@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
http://www.ISAserver.org
-------------------------------------------------------
Assumptions get you nowhere.
You brought up the plethora of pain-points - expect someone to
answer
them.
WSUS and the Internet-based updates process works very
differently,
because the WSUS server determines for the client what is
required and
what is not. Amy has a clue (several, actually); this is a rare
commodity in the SBS community and you should feel free to take
advantage of it when it appears.
Also, please stop cutting off the thread. It makes archive
searches
very nearly meaningless.
Regarding the "custom app", the log snips you provide clearly
indicate
that your rule is not being applied, since the denying rule is
quoted as
"SBS Internet Access Rule".
The best way to express your ISA policies is to use ISAInfo.
You can respond offline if you like.
Jim
-----Original Message-----
From: isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Danny
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 7:53 AM
To: isalist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [isalist] Re: 0x800733f5 error & order of polices issue
On 5/15/07, Amy Babinchak < amy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Your rule must not be configured correctly. What does
your
custom rule look like? The only reason that the SBS Internet
Access Rule
would deny anything outbound is if the app isn't authenticating.
It's
not uncommon. My bet is that the app doesn't only require that
specific
TCP high port but a range of them. I'd base the rule on the IP
address
it's trying to reach instead.
The policy is: Custom Protcol TCP 57017 Outbound, from Local
Host, to
External, All Users.
Warning the following section is OT:
Yes, the SVCHOST issue is a nuisance. The screeching is
loud on
the mailing lists. It took me a while to figure out what
everyone was
complaining about then I realized that I use WSUS everywhere.
Implement
WSUS you'll be much happier.
You imply that WSUS clients are immune to this? Most of our
affected
systems are part of WSUS installs. My understanding is the
Automatic
Update service (aka part of svchost.exe) scans the same way a
non-WSUS
client does, therefore they are both affected.
Sorry for bringing this OT item into the conversation, but the
last two
months in particular have been difficult to support Microsoft
environments when dealing with DNS RPC mgmt vulnerability, ISA
2004 SP3
install woes, a publicly unavailable (two hours MS PSS phone
call) KB
for restoring the ability to publish Outlook forms to the
Organizational
Forms Library in Exchange, and this AU/svchost issue - but looks
like
there is a follow-up:
http://blogs.technet.com/wsus/archive/2007/05/15/srvhost-msi-issue-follo
w-up.aspx
Anyway, can we focus on what I am doing wrong with this ISA
issue, that
would be much appreciated.
...D
All mail to and from this domain is GFI-scanned.
------------------------------------------------------
List Archives: //www.freelists.org/archives/isalist/
ISA Server Newsletter:
http://www.isaserver.org/pages/newsletter.asp
ISA Server Articles and Tutorials:
http://www.isaserver.org/articles_tutorials/
ISA Server Blogs: http://blogs.isaserver.org/
------------------------------------------------------
Visit TechGenix.com for more information about our other sites:
http://www.techgenix.com
------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe visit http://www.isaserver.org/pages/isalist.asp
Report abuse to listadmin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
CPDE - Certified Petroleum Distribution Engineer
CCBC - Certified Canadian Beer Consumer
Other related posts:
