[fw-wiz] RE: The Death Of A Firewall

From: Joe (gijoe_at_vinylflesh.com)
Date: 11/09/05

  • Next message: Devdas Bhagat: "Re: [fw-wiz] Non-NAT Firewall"
    To: <firewall-wizards@honor.icsalabs.com>
    Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 16:59:59 -0500
    
    

    Well the article says they are "close to achieving that goal" so perhaps
    they realized you still need a firewall at perimeter points to public
    networks to reduce network "noise" from impacting their internal network
    service
    levels (SLAs) and have those internal switches see the pounding. :)

    But what Mr Berman has accomplished as what I believe to be the endgame and
    what we are doing today
    with network security architecture as fanatical on networks when the threat
    profile as so focused above
    it.

    I believe the endgame will have the network become a utility you buy like
    electricity. Clients will be connected to
    this utility (wired or wireless.) This utility would be a complete
    convergence of internal building connectivity directly connected to the
    Internet. Your service level for this utility will have the utility company
    guarantee availability and low latency but not security. If you think about
    it for the utility company to meet the SLA the will have to run software to
    block network noise like DDoS, port scans, etc from the portal point to the
    Internet.

    Server farms will be the last bastion (no pun intended) of small networks
    with application layer firewalls front-ending them. Of course from a form
    factor perspective the server farm may reduce to a piece of heavy iron full
    of virtualization.

    Clients should be commodotized multimedia systems that are kiosks to
    applications that serve
    data managed by document management/entitlement systems. This way when data
    is requested, copies of the data
    sent to clients is "watermarked" with who/what/where/when the data is
    accessed by. There
    will always be data leakage of some form. Document management/entitlement
    systems integration with
    watermarking at least helps you track it and plug it.

    Given we already have it that people use their PDA/phone for both business
    and personal it
    is unrealistic to be able to limit the use of the client to specific
    applications. All you
    can do is secure it from infection. Of course proactive people would have
    their clients run
    various "Anti-badstuff" software with automatic updates. Other people will
    wait to their
    client connects to an application (personal banking or work portal) that
    scans the client.
    Those clients with "good hygiene" have access. Those who do not are warned
    and given
    options to clean their mess. Don't read the current NAC amd NAD solutions
    from Cisco and
    Microsoft respectively on this. I am thinking more of a solution like
    WholeSecurity.

    I am not presenting the endgame as a utopia, just as what appears to me to
    be a logical progression
    of things to come. The threat profile in the application space will just get
    very ugly. My imagination
    comes up with rogue EJBs on Java Application Servers.

    Like electricity, as a utility all the network will need to be is highly
    available and clean from
    line noise and other interference.

    Am I thinking heresy ?

    - Joe

    ========================
    Subject: RE: [fw-wiz] The Death Of A Firewall
    Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 16:31:21 -0400
    From: <hugh_fraser@dofasco.ca>
    To: <firewall-wizards@honor.icsalabs.com>

    There's a lot in the article that's left to speculation. I admire their
    internal network design; multiple security zones with clearly-defined
    services separated by application-layer firewalls, network ACLs to control
    traffic flows. Being able to accurately profile traffic traversing the
    network allows strict firewall rules and network ACLs, and greatly enhances
    the IDS or IPS ability to identify bogus traffic.
    He's also got an compartmentalized network that may allow him to contain a
    virus or worm, preventing, for instance, a workstation infected with a virus
    from spreading it to the core business servers.

    It's not clear what he's done with the clients. They're running a hardened
    OS, with the latest AV and presumably a firewall. He hasn't said they've got
    cart-blanche to run anything they want; perhaps the clients are locked down
    to a selection of approved apps, but they have broader selection than most
    of us would. With all the effort they've put in to the rest of their
    network, I have to assume that they've recognized the threats from the
    workstation and have instrumented and profiled them as well as they have
    elsewhere.

    Unfortunately, this isn't usually the case. It's the exceptions that get
    you. The users with extra rights that turn off the firewall, the admin
    people who've opened up some extra inbound ports in their firewall to allow
    a "special" app to work, the machines that for some reason didn't get the
    latest AV signature.

    And I can just imagine the complaints from our network group as their
    switches (which we rely on for traffic flow management, not security) start
    to see some of the pounding our perimeter firewall receives.

    So it's tough to understand why, with all the effort they've put in to
    hardening the interior, he would resist adding the incremental cost of one
    more firewall to protect the perimeter and potentially have the best of all
    worlds (a crunchy exterior and interior), unless it's really is for "Taking
    that crutch away has forced us to rethink our security model".

    I'd be inclined to find another way to sell that lesson.

    -----Original Message-----
    From: firewall-wizards-admin@honor.icsalabs.com
    [mailto:firewall-wizards-admin@honor.icsalabs.com] On Behalf Of Pedski
    Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 9:30 PM
    To: James Paterson
    Cc: firewall-wizards@honor.icsalabs.com
    Subject: Re: [fw-wiz] The Death Of A Firewall

    James Paterson wrote:

    >http://www.securitypipeline.com/165700439
    >
    >Be interesting to get the communities take on this article.
    >

    -- 
    No virus found in this outgoing message.
    Checked by AVG Free Edition.
    Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.8/163 - Release Date: 11/8/2005
     
    _______________________________________________
    firewall-wizards mailing list
    firewall-wizards@honor.icsalabs.com
    http://honor.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards
    

  • Next message: Devdas Bhagat: "Re: [fw-wiz] Non-NAT Firewall"

    Relevant Pages

    • << SBS News of the week - Sept 26 >>
      ... And he points to the info you need to put the file on the server in the ... at the network perimeter. ... The Symantec Firewall/VPN and the Gateway Security ... by the firewall at risk. ...
      (microsoft.public.backoffice.smallbiz)
    • << SBS News of the week - Sept 26 >>
      ... And he points to the info you need to put the file on the server in the ... at the network perimeter. ... The Symantec Firewall/VPN and the Gateway Security ... by the firewall at risk. ...
      (microsoft.public.backoffice.smallbiz2000)
    • << SBS News of the week - Sept 26 >>
      ... And he points to the info you need to put the file on the server in the ... at the network perimeter. ... The Symantec Firewall/VPN and the Gateway Security ... by the firewall at risk. ...
      (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
    • Re: Outgoing VPN Error 619
      ... I've checked in local network rules and I do have a rule called VPN clients ... PPTP clients are configured to use ISA as a hop to the Internet ... SecureNAT Clients while still trying to have Web and Firewall Client ...
      (microsoft.public.isa.vpn)
    • RE: Dhcp security
      ... Setting up a 802.1x wired network requires: ... vendors, including Cisco, provide solutions to ensure that only properly ... trust agent collects security state information from multiple security ... software clients, such as anti-virus clients, and then communicates this ...
      (Focus-Microsoft)