Netmeeting with checkpoint VPN

I have Checkpoint VPN with IP Nat pool and i want to configure netmeeting for VPN clients.
When i configure netmeeting, the clients tries to connect to real ip address rather that its nated IP address.
Who is Participating?
chris_calabreseConnect With a Mentor Commented:
I've never worked with this particular issue, nor have I ever debugged CheckPoint Inspection code, so you're probably best off complaining to your VAR or whomever you get CP support from.
NetMeeting does not work with NAT because it places the real IP address into the client data packets.
e_s_maheshAuthor Commented:
Thats right but checkpoint says they have some code written in inspection language which solves this problem.
Worried about phishing attacks?

90% of attacks start with a phish. It’s critical that IT admins and MSSPs have the right security in place to protect their end users from these phishing attacks. Check out our latest feature brief for tips and tricks to keep your employees off a hackers line!

OK, I hate to do this... but did you install/enable that code?
e_s_maheshAuthor Commented:
Yes and its not working.
I agree - checkpoint costs an arm and a leg - make them solve this one.

(Or you could dump checkpoint (a pile of crap IMO), and do the same things with linux (which *does* have a netmeeting proxy that costs about $50 [and works like a charm - even has a web gui to configure it]) - much cheaper than checkpoint, and infinitely more financailly scalable)


This is what checkpoint supports says on the matter;

Upgrade to VPN-1/FireWall-1 4.1 SP2.
See the version 4.1 SP2 release notes for instructions about editing to the $FWDIR/lib/user.def and for the creation of the required new H323 service

Hope it helps
No comment has been added lately, so it's time to clean up this TA.
I will leave a recommendation in the Cleanup topic area that this question:

I recommend: points to UkWizard

if there is any objection or other expert commentary to this recommendation then please post in here within 7 days.
If you feel that your question was not properly addressed, or that none of the comments received were appropriate answers, please post a request in Community support (with a link to this page) to refund your points.


EE Cleanup Volunteer
I recommend a split between UK and chris - chris was first to suggest asking checkpoint, but UK was the first to actually ask Checkpoint.

lrmoore - don't you hate <word edited by SpideyMod> like the original poster here (I understand if you cannot express public agreement with me here)?  Logged in to ask one single question eons ago, and then never bothered to follow up or remove his acct since he didn't immediately get the response he was looking for, and in fact never apparently used EE again.  Makes me wish I could reach into my data connection and have my hand pop out the other end, ready to strangle the guy about the throat.  I only pray he is still receiving email notifs on this so he sees this comment (but I know that's a pipe dream).

Some folks have no respect.

In any case, I know situations like this must be rather annoying - keep up the excellent work!


Answered by chris_calabrese

Community Support Moderator @Experts Exchange

Typically we don't split points under the following conditions:
1) When the net result would be less than 50 points per expert
2) When the same information is provided by two or more experts...the questioner could have obtained that same informaion by doing what chris suggested.

The--Captain - I have edited your last statement.  Let's keep things professional in the technical TAs.  There is a place on EE to do this kind of complaining which is much more loose in terms of language.  It is the lounge.  Check it out some will find quite a few folks that will share your point of view on this issue.
Question has a verified solution.

Are you are experiencing a similar issue? Get a personalized answer when you ask a related question.

Have a better answer? Share it in a comment.

All Courses

From novice to tech pro — start learning today.