Policy Rule Not Hitting When Destination is Set to 'Any' – Expected Behavior?
Hi all, I ran into a situation with a security policy in Cato and would like to hear if anyone else has experienced something similar. Here is the scenario: I created a policy where the source site is set to "Site A", the destination is set to "Any", and the application is defined as a specific IP address, for example 192.168.1.1. In this setup, the rule does not match and traffic is not allowed as expected. However, when I change the destination from "Any" to the specific site where 192.168.1.1 is located, the rule starts working correctly and the traffic is matched. My questions: Is this expected behavior in Cato? Does using "Any" as the destination somehow prevent matching traffic to a specific internal IP? Is there something else I might be missing? Appreciate any insights or experiences. Thanks!
CATO socket intermittent disconnection.
Hi everyone, i have experienced loss of connection from my ISP to CATO socket.. upon checking no any issues from ISP side no downtime. i already replaced LAN patch cable from ISP modem to CATO socket. and i restarted both devices. but still keep experiencing disconnection. how can i check or where can i download logs so i can see what is the root cause of CATO disconnection???
Containers and Network Rules
Hi! We use an IP container for storing large amounts of IP ranges and reference the container in Internet firewall rules. We have a problem we could overcome by referencing the IP Container in a Network Rule, but apparently, the container can only be used with firewall rules, not network rules. Does anyone have any suggestions on how to work around this? In simple terms, the requirement is to define specific IP ranges, to which traffic would then be routed through a NAT rule and a static IP.
Clarification on Bandwidth Limit with Split Tunnel Policy
Hi CATO Community, I have a question regarding the CATO Bandwidth limit in relation to split tunneling policies. I have purchased a 25 Mbps CATO Bandwidth plan. If an SDP Client connects to the CATO Cloud and I configure a split tunnel policy to route some traffic outside of CATO Cloud (e.g., directly to the internet), will this traffic still be limited to the 25 Mbps bandwidth cap? 2, If the traffic is indeed limited, is there any method to bypass this limit for split tunnel traffic? Specifically, I want the split tunnel traffic to bypass the CATO Cloud entirely, avoid any security checks, and enjoy the full speed of our original internet connection. I would appreciate any insights or advice from those who have experience with this configuration. Thanks in advance for your help!Inquiry About Application Traffic Routing and Network Rules in CATO SASE
Hi all, I have a question regarding configuring application traffic routing in the CATO SASE platform. Specifically, I would like to direct some application traffic to the CATO Cloud while routing other application traffic locally. I understand that this can be achieved using Bypass or Split Tunnel Policies, but I noticed that only five applications can be selected in these policies. Given that the Network Rules function offers a broader selection of applications, can Network Rules be used to achieve the same routing objectives? If so, I’d appreciate guidance on how to configure this effectively. Thank you for your assistance, and I look forward to your insights.
