=== Análisis cde-fw contra puertos inseguros ===

INBOUND rules (9):
  ⚠ FTP/tcp (21) within range 1-65535 - scope: {'tags': ['compliance-scanner']}
  ⚠ Telnet/tcp (23) within range 1-65535 - scope: {'tags': ['compliance-scanner']}
  ⚠ TFTP/tcp (69) within range 1-65535 - scope: {'tags': ['compliance-scanner']}
  ⚠ HTTP/tcp (80) within range 1-65535 - scope: {'tags': ['compliance-scanner']}
  ⚠ NNTP/tcp (119) within range 1-65535 - scope: {'tags': ['compliance-scanner']}
  ⚠ SNMPv1/v2/tcp (161) within range 1-65535 - scope: {'tags': ['compliance-scanner']}
  ⚠ rlogin/tcp (513) within range 1-65535 - scope: {'tags': ['compliance-scanner']}
  ⚠ rsh/tcp (514) within range 1-65535 - scope: {'tags': ['compliance-scanner']}
  ⚠ FTP/udp (21) within range 1-65535 - scope: {'tags': ['compliance-scanner']}
  ⚠ Telnet/udp (23) within range 1-65535 - scope: {'tags': ['compliance-scanner']}
  ⚠ TFTP/udp (69) within range 1-65535 - scope: {'tags': ['compliance-scanner']}
  ⚠ HTTP/udp (80) within range 1-65535 - scope: {'tags': ['compliance-scanner']}
  ⚠ NNTP/udp (119) within range 1-65535 - scope: {'tags': ['compliance-scanner']}
  ⚠ SNMPv1/v2/udp (161) within range 1-65535 - scope: {'tags': ['compliance-scanner']}
  ⚠ rlogin/udp (513) within range 1-65535 - scope: {'tags': ['compliance-scanner']}
  ⚠ rsh/udp (514) within range 1-65535 - scope: {'tags': ['compliance-scanner']}

OUTBOUND rules (4):
  ✓ No insecure ports matched exactly
