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. |

| Subject: | RE: Nortel Contivity 2600 |
|---|---|
| Date: | Thu, 08 Sep 2005 09:41:29 -0600 |
So I understand the concerns and I think the best way to do this for both simplicity and security is a combination of things that have been suggested. 1) Put the outside interface of the 2600 on border net (outside the FW) and pin up some ACL's on the border router as Dario has suggested. This will keep all but encrytion traffic getting to your VPN device. 2) Put the inside interface in a DMZ of its own with an IPS device between the inside vpn int and the DMZ interface. This will allow you to monitor and shutdown traffic based on sig's in the IPS, but will also allow you to rate limit traffic from the VPN and create ACL's for new worm traffic before your IPS vendor gets around to creating a sig for it. 3) Limit traffic on the DMZ interface from the VPN source IP only to items that are absolutely necessary. If possible segment different types of users into different source IP space so that the ACL's on the DMZ FW can be group specific (ie general users get access to the mail server and file share, where as security and networking teams aditionally have SSH access to a hop point in the network, HR has access to their DB, sales has access to the CRM, etc) Trust me... After implementing dozens of different VPN solutions over the years you are better off to NOT complicate the IPSEC connection by trying to put NAT on both the client and server end of the tunnel... You will end up tearing your hair out trying to make sure that the vendors have implemented the proper RFC's to make sure that is supported... And don't even get me started on NAT-T... -Kyle -----Original Message----- From: Dario Ciccarone (dciccaro) [mailto:dciccaro@cisco.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 3:14 PM To: misiu; pen-test@securityfocus.com Subject: RE: Nortel Contivity 2600 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'tgoing to helphim 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | RE: superscan on win2k vs winxp, Eric Appelboom |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | RE: Incident Regarding to CIA, Alberto Cardona II |
| Previous by Thread: | RE: Nortel Contivity 2600, Dario Ciccarone (dciccaro) |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Nortel Contivity 2600, Rodrigo Blanco |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |