Re: [fw-wiz] RE: In defense of non standard ports

> On Tue, 24 Jan 2006, ArkanoiD wrote:
>> Allowing uncotrolled HTTP CONNECT to any port seems quite suicidal for
>> any reasonable security policy, am i wrong?
> As suicidal as allowing all TCP outbound. Which is happening *way* too
> much, and is the reason we see things like botnets rapant on hospital
> networks.
> I think you shouldn't be allowed to install I{D,P}S until your firewall
> ruleset is this | high.
> Paul

I've been monitoring this discussion and I have issues with two
assumptions being made. The first is that all organizations have security
professionals with some pull with management. Politics plays a big part
and unless you can sell a solution or are hacked sideways nothing will be
done. This is the frustration of many technical security professionals.

Lets take the above issue - all tcp ports outbound are open. Throwing in
an IDS is an quick way to gather appropriate information to help sell to
management that they have a real problem. Just telling them "all ports
outbound bad" does not work. In addition - the log output from [insert
whatever firewall here] is either not detailed enough or the volume is so
high that it is not always practical to run analyze on the output.

Second issue I have is that running IDS's takes a lot of time. That is
bull. I had a vendor in today that was going off about such nonsense. It
is just like any other service. You plan, implement, and manage that
service appropriately. If you are spending all your time updating rules
and keeping things in sync - your problem is not the ids but your
operational processes.

IDS have their place as any other service but saying they are useless or
offering a negative opinion on an organizations internal controls (or lack
of them) does not help that individual solve a problem.


firewall-wizards mailing list