Re: Reverse SSH tunelling

From: Martin Menhart, B.Sc. - m-sys EDV-Dienstleistungen (m.menhart_at_m-sys.at)
Date: 09/01/04

  • Next message: Monty Ree: "redhat patch problem?"
    Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 11:45:23 +0200
    To: "focus-linux@securityfocus.com" <focus-linux@securityfocus.com>
    
    

    I've done a lot ssh-tunneling (back an forth,
    cascaded-ssh-portforwarding ...) myself, because I think that allowing
    the the needed ports is better than to allow all ports, then restrict it
    to the ports needed. SSH-Tunnels ar also very easy to implement and
    straight-forward. You can "just do it", needing only an ssh-client at hand.
    I aggree with Glynn in considering a "real" VPN for persistent server-to
    server-tunnels, although the reverse ssh-tunnelling has it's charm.
    Not everything is so easily done with this technique (broadcasting, udp,
    ...). Furthermore to implement a persistent server-to-server tunnel,
    implies some locking mechanism, that you have to maintain yourself, so I
    decided to look into VPNning myself and luckily found openvpn!
    I think openvpn is a good choice because of it's easy setup. Also it
    should be reasonably secure, since it relys on the security of ssl.
    It runs in userspace and utilizes one udp-port per connection.
    If you want to give this a try:
            http://openvpn.sourceforge.net/

    nice tunneling, martin.

    Glynn Clements schrieb:
    > Raistlin Majere wrote:
    >
    >
    >> I need some advice .. I have a situation where about fifty servers will
    >>be located in fifty sites that cannot allow services to be hosted. These
    >>servers will be in private network space behind firewalls. I can use
    >>them to 'scp' files out to a common home base server, but sometimes I
    >>need to access a command line console on these servers. I am thinking of
    >>having a hourly cron job ssh out to my home base server and leaving that
    >>tunnel open so that I can access that console, but am looking for the
    >>specific way of doing this. Security os pf the utmost concern, so I need
    >>some sort of encrypted tunnel, hence the thought of ssh, but I don't
    >>know how to do this 'reverse' tunnel... I was also thinking of a 'free
    >>swan' vpn tunnel ..
    >
    >
    > If you have root on the remote systems, I would suggest using a real
    > VPN rather than the sort of ad-hoc mechanisms which others have
    > suggested. The choice of exactly which VPN is likely to be determined
    > by what you can get through the firewall; e.g. if it only allows TCP,
    > then you will be limited to a PPP/SLIP-over-SSH/SSL type VPN.
    >


  • Next message: Monty Ree: "redhat patch problem?"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: Visa PCI Firewall Requirements and Windows Networks
      ... GP without the risk of open ports or a DC in the DMZ. ... Outbound access should be minimized but if windows update is your ... alternative tools on trusted servers to patch your machine. ... > behind the second firewall. ...
      (Focus-Microsoft)
    • Re: Win32 The RPC server is unavailable
      ... correct DNS servers and the port are unblocked. ... WMI errors the seem to be RPC related. ... All od the port are unblocked between the servers and the ... Usually RPC errors are due to name resolution or blocked ports. ...
      (microsoft.public.windows.server.networking)
    • RE: Slow user logon on Terminal server after migration to Windows 2003
      ... The Terminal Servers are 2000 or 2003. ... "Inside the firewall zone" means that the Citrix Servers have a firewall ... available RPC ports? ...
      (microsoft.public.windows.server.active_directory)
    • Re: Status Update - "Out of Paper" - HELP!
      ... Tcpip ports on the server. ... Windows Printing Team ... I've got 6 Windows 2000 print servers here. ...
      (microsoft.public.win2000.printing)
    • Re: Compromised Windows Server
      ... running exchange for one client. ... has been built, during the build it was not open to the internet. ... servers. ... You mention that the machine is an Exchange server, yet it has ports 80 ...
      (Incidents)