Re: [fw-wiz] Issue with replacing SonicWall VPN with Cisco ASA VPN devices

You will setup the ACL's you will have named for your crypto-map map
<whatever> match address vpn_acl_HQ. They will have to be subnets
because you are defining trusted subnets for the site-2-site. (access-
list vpn_acl_HQ permit ip 10.1.1.1 255.255.255.0 10.0.0.0
255.255.255.0). Even with the intra/inter-face same security level you
will still have to setup No NAT (nat (inside) 0 access-list nonat)
(access-list nonat permit ip 10.1.1.1 255.255.255.0 10.0.0.0
255.255.255.0) policies for the traffic to not nat over the VPN. I am
assuming you are using the 'outside' interface for the VPN peer, hence
security levels will be different. The only risk involved with this is
if the branch offices are using there own internet connection where
you get all the virus' (all 0's route out there own router to the
internet) and not using HTTP/HTTPS over the VPN to HQ, which it sounds
like, because this will give carte blanche to any worm or attack that
is successful in the branch office to propogate to the HQ. If you are
only using the HQ for certain traffic, then define that traffic and
only allow it over the VPN via ACL and not use 'ip' for the ACL. If
this is not feasible, then get another PIX and use it strictly for VPN
let the IP traffic traverse it for simplistic setup reasons and create
a transit between the two boxes on a dmz or inside interface with
specific ACL's for the traffic you want to hit the HQ.

Hope this helps!





On Sep 27, 2007, at 10:46 AM, robbie.jacka@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

Caveat: this has only been fixed in 7.2(1) and later, if memory
serves.

Robbie




Anthony
<ez4me2c3d@gmail.

com> To
Sent by: Firewall Wizards Security
Mailing
firewall-wizards- List
bounces@listserv. <firewall-wizards@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
icsalabs.com .com>
cc
"Behm, Jeffrey L." <BehmJL@xxxxxx
,
09/26/2007 07:33 firewall-wizards-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx
PM csalabs.com,
michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Subject
Please respond to Re: [fw-wiz] Issue with
replacing
Firewall Wizards SonicWall VPN with Cisco ASA
VPN
Security Mailing devices
List
<firewall-wizards
@listserv.icsalab
s.com>






Robbie,
The ASA code 7.x has addressed VPN hairpinning with the
same-security-traffic permit intra-interface command.
I've done it several times with great success. And with proper ACLs
and
routes you can direct the traffic where ever you want.

Jeff,
What you are trying to do is possible on the ASAs. You're basically
setting up a hub/spoke vpn model with l2l's between HQ and remote
offices. Cisco.com has documents on how to set this up.

References:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/partner/products/ps6120/products_configuration_example09186a00807f9a89.shtml

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/partner/products/hw/vpndevc/ps2030/products_configuration_example09186a00804675ac.shtml

General Configuration Examples
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/partner/products/ps6120/prod_configuration_examples_list.html


Anthony


robbie.jacka@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
The biggest possible issue is hairpinning the internet-bound traffic
inside
of the 5520, not tunneling the traffic back from the 5505s. PIX 6.x
has
traditionally had a problem with this, if I recall correctly, and
I'm not
sure that it's been fixed in PIX 7.x/ASA code

Robbie





Michael Cox

<michael@wanderin

gbark.net>
To
Sent by:
firewall-wizards@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
firewall-wizards- com

bounces@listserv.
cc
icsalabs.com "Behm, Jeffrey L." <BehmJL@xxxxxx



Subject
Re: [fw-wiz] Issue with
replacing

09/26/2007 09:25 SonicWall VPN with Cisco ASA
VPN

AM devices





Please respond to

Firewall Wizards

Security Mailing

List

<firewall-wizards

@listserv.icsalab

s.com>









For clarification, are there clients connecting to the 5505's, or
is it
just a site-to-site setup?

In any case, what you want to do should be possible. When you
define the
ACL for what traffic goes down the tunnel from the branch to the hub,
simply do "permit ip <LAN network address> <LAN netmask> any".
Reverse
this on the hub.

I'm stumped as to why they think this is a security issue.

Maybe TAC didn't understand what you want to do (or maybe I don't).

Regards,
Michael

On Tuesday 25 September 2007 09:03, Behm, Jeffrey L. wrote:

Hello Wizards,

Our network team is replacing the client's SonicWall devices with
Cisco ASA 5505 (remote office) and 5520 (HQ) devices. The SonicWall
devices were basically used as VPN endpoints in remote offices to be
concentrated back to the corporate HQ. All traffic not destined for
the local LAN in the remote offices was sent to the corporate office
via the "Route all traffic through this SA" functionality in the
SonicWall. This worked well for the environment, but now there is
the
need to replace these devices, and Cisco ASA devices have been
chosen.

They are now trying to duplicate that functionality via the Cisco
devices, but in talking with Cisco TAC, they say such a
configuration
is not possible, and even if it were, it would not be a security
best
practice. Implementation of the Cisco device has broken all Internet
connectivity from the remote offices, since the only traffic allowed
out to/from the Internet is through HQ (with the exception of the
site to site VPN traffic to allow connectivity between remote
offices
and HQ). Remote offices can see everything on the HQ LAN, because
the
Cisco device is configured with IP information that allows it to
route traffic to HQ.

I can see some of Cisco's arguments regarding it not being a
security
best practice, but in the scenario of centralized management and
monitoring of Internet-bound traffic, has anyone successfully
configured the Cisco devices to mimic the "Route all traffic through
this SA" functionality present in the SonicWall devices? I
understand
they could open up the Cisco devices to allow traffic out from each
office, but that would require monitoring every remote office, and
deviates from the centralized monitoring/management path we are
currently traversing. I haven't personally been involved in this
implementation, but was approached by the network team due to my
security background, so I can get more details from the network team
if necessary.

We are simply trying to mimic in the Cisco devices the "Route all
traffic through this SA" functionality present in the SonicWall
devices.

Thoughts?

Jeff
_______________________________________________
firewall-wizards mailing list
firewall-wizards@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://listserv.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards

_______________________________________________
firewall-wizards mailing list
firewall-wizards@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://listserv.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards


_______________________________________________
firewall-wizards mailing list
firewall-wizards@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://listserv.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards



_______________________________________________
firewall-wizards mailing list
firewall-wizards@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://listserv.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards


_______________________________________________
firewall-wizards mailing list
firewall-wizards@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://listserv.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards

_______________________________________________
firewall-wizards mailing list
firewall-wizards@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://listserv.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards

Relevant Pages