I just would like to add, that from my personal experience, even when
systems have three layers that are separated by some 'low hanging fruit
protection' stuff (like firewalls, or IIS Application Pools), the
functionality that exists from layer 3 to layer 2 and from layer 2 to
layer 1 (being layer 3 the Internet facing one) is more than enough to
gain full access to the targeted asset (which is usually a database)
What I mean is that if I am able to execute malicious code in the web
server, I can use the interfaces to the 'business layer' to gain full
access to the 'Database Layer'.
Why? Because attacks from 'internal' malicious code are very rarely
considered and mitigated.
And if they have a Fat C++/.Net/Java client (or in he 'new 2006 version'
in AJAX :) I can even start this 'exploitation-stack' on the client machine.
Dinis Cruz
.Net Security Consultant
Owasp .Net Project Leader
Rehberger Leopold wrote:
Hi,
In fact there are some security considerations. One is the possibility to place
firewalls between the layers.
This gives you more control regarding security.
The proper place for the presenaton layer is a DMZ. Why? Because nowadays many
attacks work on the application level through Http Protocol (Code Injection,
Path Traversal, Parameter Manipulaton, Use of Buffer Overflows,...) The first
server which may be attacked on that level ist the one which holds the
presentation layer, because this is the server which actually answers the Http
Requests. Do you like to have this server in your Corporate Network? I guess
not.
So it is definitly a good idea to seperate the presentation layer from the application layer and seperate those two layers through a firewall. To even gain more flexibility regarding security proxies, application gateways and web filters may be placed between the layers as well.
Another point is the possibility to change protocols between the layers, which
gives you additional security.
Typically the following architecture will give you proper security:
Internet -> FW1 - Proxies, Webfilter - Presentation Layer -> FW2 -> Application
Layer -> Data Layer
If you deal with an application where the presentation layer and the
application layer are not seperatable I would consider the following
Architecture:
Internet -> FW1 - Proxies, Webfilter -> FW2 Presentation+Appl. Layer -> FW3 ->
Data Layer
Of course this are only recommendations. Your architecture depends on your
actual situation and your needs for security. You may choose more or less
layers and firewalls.
greetings,
Leopold Rehberger
________________________________
Von: Richard Burgett [mailto:richard_burgett@yahoo.com]
Gesendet: Do 28.07.2005 03:52
An: webappsec@securityfocus.com
Betreff: Three Physical Tiers in the Name of Security?
One of our new colleagues is leading the charge to
require *all* business logic (i.e. database calls) to
be physically located on a middle tier server (which
is separate from the Web and DB Server). The
motivation for this change is "to be more secure".
We're a Microsoft shop, and are finally moving from
ASP to ASP.Net for public facing web apps (ones that
provide web registrations and similar with a
database).
I can understand using Three Physical Tiers for the
reasons of performance, scalability, and design
purposes. But, I've yet to find a compelling reason
why to do this for security reasons (after some
googling).
Could anyone point to some sort of authoritative
document on this or give a response?
Chapter 7 in the "Building Secure ASP.NET
Applications" book has very useful information, I'm
just basically trying to see how security mesures up
between the 2 physical tier scenario of "ASP.NET to
SQL Server" and 3 physical tier scenarios of "ASP.NET
to Remote Enterprise Services to SQL Server" (or even
"Using .NET Remoting").
Do 2 Physical tiers only cut it for small web sites
that don't store things like Credit Card info (i.e.
"Grandma's Cookie Shop")? Where would you draw the
line for moving to 3 tiers (being a bank)? Upto what
level of sensitive info can you store in 2 physical
tiers?
In trying to look at it from a bad guy's perspective,
how much more protection does the extra physical tier
give you? (especially in terms of trying to escalating
database privilege or trying to penetrate backend
systems) I'm not too familiar with these newer
technologies in terms of pen-testing, but I imagine it
wouldn't be that much harder to "island hop" across
the middle tier with netcat (or similar) after gaining
access and elevating privileges. (these newer
technologies must use open ports that pass through the
firewall between servers that could somehow be
compromised).
We have a fairly low volume of transactions, and were
hoping to smoothe out the learning curve for our
existing developers that are learning .Net and web
stuff and take a more gradual approach. (although
some of our apps are small and they all probably don't
warrant the extra complexity of this approach).
Personally, I don't like the rigid rule of having to
create a class on a middle tier for all database calls
to populate a web page, but maybe it will grow on me
;)
Some of our developers are thinking 3 tiers is
actually 3 tears from the eyes, lol
Thanks for any feedback,
Richard
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
