Ethical Hacking

Learn to find vulnerabilities before the bad guys do! Gain real world hands on hacking experience in our state of the art hacking lab. Course designed and taught by expert instructors with years of penetration testing experience. 12 student maximum in every class. Certification attempt included in every package.
Computer Forensics Training at InfoSec Institute

Gain the in-demand skills of a certified computer examiner, learn to recover trace data left behind by fraud, theft, and cybercrime perpetrators. Discover the source of computer crime and abuse at your organization so that it never happens again. All of our class sizes are guaranteed to be 12 students or less to facilitate one-on-one interaction with one of our expert instructors.




Network Security Pen-Test
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Nortel Contivity 2600

Subject: RE: Nortel Contivity 2600
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 17:13:49 -0400
For the 'why NAT and IPSec don't play nice together' question, go check
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3715.txt - and after reading that, check for
IPSec NAT-T (rfc-editor being a good place to start)

You mention deploying the VPN box behind an IPS device. Yes and no. What
are you trying to achieve? If your IPS box is inline, and does protocol
checking/normalization, that could work - the IPS would drop the
malformed packets and notify the management console (possibly). But do
you need/want to have that information? 

Before deciding where to connect the VPN device (firewall, inline IPS,
nothing) we should decide what we want to achieve by doing it.

And there have been some comments about the VPN box interaction with
NAT. Deploying it behind a firewall != NATting - either because you
configure a 1:1 translation between public IP/private IP, or you use an
L2-firewall.



-----Original Message-----
From: misiu [mailto:misiu_@gmx.de] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 5:14 AM
To: pen-test@securityfocus.com
Subject: Re: Nortel Contivity 2600

Dario Ciccarone (dciccaro) schrieb:
Putting the device in question behind the firewall isn't 
going to help
him with DoS attacks - unless those attacks are due to malformed
packets, _and_ the firewall in question drops the type of malformed
packets that would trigger the DoS.


Hmm, but if malformed packs come, is it not much better to 
set it behind 
  an IPS? Firewall is not allways the right thing to protect, i guess.
I don't really understand why Nat is not working....
The Adresses of the tunnel are not encrypted, do they might have a 
checksum wich is altered through a NAT device?

Do I see this right?

misiu

--------------------------------------------------------------
----------------
Audit your website security with Acunetix Web Vulnerability Scanner: 

Hackers are concentrating their efforts on attacking 
applications on your 
website. Up to 75% of cyber attacks are launched on shopping 
carts, forms, 
login pages, dynamic content etc. Firewalls, SSL and 
locked-down servers are 
futile against web application hacking. Check your website 
for vulnerabilities 
to SQL injection, Cross site scripting and other web attacks 
before hackers do! 
Download Trial at:

http://www.securityfocus.com/sponsor/pen-test_050831
--------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Audit your website security with Acunetix Web Vulnerability Scanner: 

Hackers are concentrating their efforts on attacking applications on your 
website. Up to 75% of cyber attacks are launched on shopping carts, forms, 
login pages, dynamic content etc. Firewalls, SSL and locked-down servers are 
futile against web application hacking. Check your website for vulnerabilities 
to SQL injection, Cross site scripting and other web attacks before hackers do! 
Download Trial at:

http://www.securityfocus.com/sponsor/pen-test_050831
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>