[fw-wiz] Defense in Depth to the Desktop

From: Chris Pugrud (cpugrud_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 12/02/04

  • Next message: Christopher Hicks: "Re: [fw-wiz] Forward 2 networks"
    To: firewall-wizards@honor.icsalabs.com
    Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 11:24:28 -0800 (PST)
    
    

    Defense in Depth to the Desktop
    the Strong Internal Network Defense model

    Most organizations have expended large amounts of money and resources in
    strengthening their perimeter defenses, primarily through firewalls and similar
    network hardware mechanisms. Additionally, most organizations rely only on
    operating system security controls for the internal networks, not applying
    strong internal security controls. The lack of strong internal security
    controls is highlighted when the internal network and systems suffer
    catastrophic failure when attackers, malware, and, most destructively, worm
    viruses make their way into the network inside the defensive perimeter. This
    is the classic "eggshell" weakness of network security, hard and crunchy on the
    outside, soft and chewy on the inside. The Strong Internal Network Defense
    (SIND) model attempts to address this key vulnerability through the application
    of hard internal defenses through network hardware.

    Overview

    Consider the following example of a simplified network. The network is divided
    into two subnets; one subnet contains all of the client systems, while the
    second subnet contains all of the servers. The client subnet and the server
    subnet are separated by a session based, stateful, packet filtering firewall.
    The firewall is unidirectional; it only permits traffic that is initiated from
    a client to a server. Servers are allowed to reply to clients, but they can
    not initiate communication, TCP or UDP, to a client.

    Surprisingly, this example does not break Microsoft or most application [*1]
    protocols. The result is counterintuitive, but analysis and testing support
    this assertion.

    In addition to the firewall, the client systems are fully isolated from each
    other by layer 2 controls (private vlans). The servers may be similarly
    isolated, but doing so is minimally effective and damaging to server to server
    communications.

    Consider the introduction of a zero day worm virus [*2] into such a network by
    an infected client. The client can attack all of the servers, and all of the
    servers may become infected. The infected client can not attack any of the
    other clients because of the layer 2 isolation. The infected servers can not
    attack any of the clients because of the firewall. The end result is that one
    client and the servers, a small subset of the organization, are infected. This
    is much less devastating, and much easier to clean up, than if the entire
    network was infected.

    [*1] MAPI, the protocol used by MS Exchange clients (outlook) and the server
    has a quirk, acknowledged by Microsoft, affecting new mail notification.
    Despite the presence of a perfectly capable TCP connection from client to
    server, the server sends a small “new mail notification” message to the client
    from a random high port, UDP, to a dynamic high port on the client. Microsoft
    has acknowledged the issue, as highlighted by using clients through a NAT
    gateway, but does not give an indication that they care to fix it.

    [*2] The infamous “zero day worm virus” is invoked as a worse case analysis
    because it invalidates anti-virus and patch defense mechanisms. Since worms
    are increasingly targeting necessary network ports, personal firewalls are also
    equally invalidated as a defense mechanism. Marcus can gleefully dance on
    their graves.

    Analysis

    The primary design of the model is to focus security resources on the servers.
    No organization can reasonably maintain strict control over client systems, but
    they do have absolute control over making sure that servers are currently
    patched and running the latest AV signatures. The need to keep client systems
    on the patch and AV treadmill is greatly diminished. Client systems can not
    directly affect the security of other clients systems, they can only attempt to
    harm the servers and themselves.

    Application protocols that are broken are peer to peer systems and any kind of
    desktop file sharing. This is strongly viewed as a good thing in most
    organizations. If I was an attacker going after juicy data the first place I
    would look is the poorly secured desktops of the CEO and CFO. Since many
    organization appear to be IDS blind on client segments, I’d probably fly under
    the radar as well.

    The model can be easily supplemented with port and protocol restrictions to
    further protect the servers from the clients.

    The model is very easily scalable, the example is for demonstration purposes.
    Research suggests the addition of: a tightly protected “master server” segment,
    for servers that query clients (server -> client protocols, security scanners,
    dhcp, backup servers?); a resources segment for things only used by the
    servers, like printers; the Internet (duh!); and something intuitive keeps
    wanting to separate out authorization servers (Domain Controllers) as well.
    Draw circles on the white board for each segment with arrows to model the
    firewall, any arrows that point at the clients have the potential to infect the
    entire organization, you’ve been warned.

    With good IP space management, the model should scale across a WAN.

    Questions? (aka, what have I missed?)

    Chris

    _______________________________________________
    firewall-wizards mailing list
    firewall-wizards@honor.icsalabs.com
    http://honor.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards


  • Next message: Christopher Hicks: "Re: [fw-wiz] Forward 2 networks"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: [fw-wiz] Defense in Depth to the Desktop
      ... > network hardware mechanisms. ... The Strong Internal Network Defense ... The client subnet and the server ... Servers are allowed to reply to clients, ...
      (Firewall-Wizards)
    • Re: Controlling server security -- to domain or not to domain?
      ... > very least you have a bunch of servers physically on the network that each ... that is not connected to the internal network. ... connecting the DMZ to the internal network and making the server a domain ...
      (microsoft.public.security)
    • 1058 and 1030 errors revisited
      ... tried to run the gpofix utility I got a "network path not ... There are about sixty client ... whereas the servers all have two gigabit ... We printed out our old w2k GPOs and used these to ...
      (microsoft.public.windows.group_policy)
    • Re: [fw-wiz] Defense in Depth to the Desktop
      ... Sounds a lot like Domain Based Security (not Windows 'domains', ... > network hardware mechanisms. ... The client subnet and the ... Servers are allowed to reply to clients, ...
      (Firewall-Wizards)
    • RE: 1058 and 1030 errors revisited
      ... > tried to run the gpofix utility I got a "network path not ... We have four servers to ... There are about sixty client ... > When we bought the machines, ...
      (microsoft.public.windows.group_policy)