Re: [fw-wiz] insecurity in internet connection thro cable modems

From: Dave Mitchell (dmitchell@viawest.net)
Date: 02/16/03

  • Next message: Noonan, Wesley: "RE: [fw-wiz] insecurity in internet connection thro cable modems"
    From: Dave Mitchell <dmitchell@viawest.net>
    To: "Noonan, Wesley" <Wesley_Noonan@bmc.com>
    Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 10:39:07 -0700
    

    Wes,
      GlobalPro makes it easier to maintain a fleet of Netscreens. I'm confused
    as to why you feel their VPN support is lacking? I've been able to interoperate
    Netscreen IPSec with Cisco PIX, Cisco IOS, Checkpoint, Cisco VPN3k, FreeSWAN;
    just to name some. Support for preshared keys, x509 certs, ldap auth, and securid
    auth make me feel that Netscreen's IPSec has quite a few features, not to mention
    higher throughput due to their ASIC's.

    -dave

    On Sat, Feb 15, 2003 at 01:27:51PM -0600, Noonan, Wesley wrote:
    > Having used both, I strongly prefer a PIX. It is much easier to maintain a
    > bunch of PIXen than it is to maintain a bunch of netscreens. It's not that
    > the netscreens are bad, it is just that the TCO is too high to try to
    > maintain a "fleet" of them. In addition, I find their (netscreen) VPN
    > support to be... well... lacking. It is a very convoluted process, much like
    > the PIX was 2 years ago.
    >
    > HTH
    >
    > Wes Noonan, MCSE/CCNA/CCDA/NNCSS/Security+
    > Senior QA Rep.
    > BMC Software, Inc.
    > (713) 918-2412
    > wnoonan@bmc.com
    > http://www.bmc.com
    >
    >
    > > -----Original Message-----
    > > From: Brian Ford [mailto:brford@cisco.com]
    > > Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2003 12:56
    > > To: firewall-wizards@honor.icsalabs.com
    > > Cc: Dave Mitchell
    > > Subject: Re: [fw-wiz] insecurity in internet connection thro cable modems
    > >
    > > Dave,
    > >
    > > >More than
    > > >likely, natting a home network behind a linksys soho router would be
    > > >sufficient.
    > >
    > > Yet another security policy that begins with "more than likely". What
    > > happens in the "likely" case when someone figures out where you are and
    > > wants to get at your stuff?
    > >
    > > >Putting in PIX 501's at someones home would be insane. If you have to
    > > >administer
    > > >it, a small Netscreen is much easier than dealing with PIX.
    > >
    > > Gee Dave. Why would it be insane to use a PIX?
    > >
    > > To set up a PIX at home all you need is the PIX. You don't need a PC and
    > > the setup disk that NetScreen ships.
    > >
    > > The 501 ships with a default "plug and play" configuration that for many
    > > installs (including folks sitting behind a cable modem) requires no
    > > modification to get up and running.
    > >
    > > The PIX also supports Cisco AUS (Auto Update Server) so that security
    > > policy, operating system image, and configuration updates can be securely
    > > downloaded to the PIX from a central site without end user intervention.
    > >
    > > You said "a small Netscreen is much easier than dealing with PIX". Have
    > > you really tried both products? Could it be that you just don't like
    > > PIX? Or that you just don't know about the PIX?
    > >
    > > Liberty for All,
    > >
    > > Brian
    > >
    > > At 12:00 PM 2/15/2003 -0500, firewall-wizards-request@honor.icsalabs.com
    > > wrote:
    > > >Message: 5
    > > >Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 14:03:11 -0700
    > > >From: Dave Mitchell <dmitchell@viawest.net>
    > > >To: "Perrymon, Josh L." <PerrymonJ@bek.com>
    > > >Cc: "'Chapman, Justin T'" <JtChapma@bhi-erc.com>,
    > > > "'firewall-wizards@honor.icsalabs.com '"
    > > > <firewall-wizards@honor.icsalabs.com>
    > > >Subject: Re: [fw-wiz] insecurity in internet connection thro cable modems
    > > >
    > > >For normal users I'd recommend some sort of appliance filter or firewall.
    > > >More than
    > > >likely, natting a home network behind a linksys soho router would be
    > > >sufficient. If you
    > > >want to do VPNing and what not, I think a Netscreen 5 would be the best
    > > >for the home
    > > >firewall. Putting in PIX 501's at someones home would be insane. If you
    > > >have to administer
    > > >it, a small Netscreen is much easier than dealing with PIX.
    > > >
    > > >-dave
    > > >
    > > >On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 10:42:16AM -0600, Perrymon, Josh L. wrote:
    > > > > Yeah... I ( Security Professional ) would implement IPChains or a PIX
    > > @
    > > > > home...
    > > > > But don't you think Linux is completely out of the question for a
    > > regular
    > > > > end user?????
    > > > >
    > > > > I'm looking for an application based firewall for my VPN users..
    > > > > So far ZONE ALARM is my choice.. I just wished I could integrate it
    > > with
    > > > > the PIX VPN client like the concentrator can.
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > > Any Ideas??
    > > > > -JP
    > > > >
    > > > > -----Original Message-----
    > > > > From: Chapman, Justin T [mailto:JtChapma@bhi-erc.com]
    > > > > Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 11:29 AM
    > > > > To: 'firewall-wizards@honor.icsalabs.com '
    > > > > Subject: RE: [fw-wiz] insecurity in internet connection thro cable
    > > > > modems
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > > >
    > > > > >ipchains is old ( for the previous Linux Kernel 2.2 ), iptables
    > > > > >http://www.iptables.org would be a better choice.
    > > > >
    > > > > Agreed. If it's an option at all, choose iptables over ipchains.
    > > It's
    > > > more
    > > > > flexable and it's a stateful packet filter, which makes for a
    > > "smarter"
    > > > > firewall. IPtables (and ipchains for that matter) can be a bit
    > > > intimidating
    > > > > to work with, especially if you're new to the syntax. If you're going
    > > to
    > > > > "rolll your own" firewall, I would suggest searching
    > > Google/Freshmeat.net
    > > > > for "iptables generator". There are plenty of scripts/web
    > > frontends/guis
    > > > > that make creating simple "consumer-grade" firewalls a snap. One that
    > > I
    > > > > particularly like is a cgi-based one at:
    > > > >
    > > > > http://morizot.net/firewall/gen/
    > > > >
    > > > > Good luck!
    > > > >
    > > > > --justin
    > > > >
    > >
    > >
    > > Brian Ford
    > > Consulting Engineer
    > > Corporate Consulting Engineering, Office of the Chief Technology Officer
    > > Cisco Systems, Inc.
    > > http://www.cisco.com
    > > e-mail: brford@cisco.com
    > >
    > > _______________________________________________
    > > firewall-wizards mailing list
    > > firewall-wizards@honor.icsalabs.com
    > > http://honor.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards
    > _______________________________________________
    > firewall-wizards mailing list
    > firewall-wizards@honor.icsalabs.com
    > http://honor.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards
    _______________________________________________
    firewall-wizards mailing list
    firewall-wizards@honor.icsalabs.com
    http://honor.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards