Re: IIS6 on W2k3 DCs

• Previous message: Sullivan Tim P: "RE: IIS6 on W2k3 DCs"
• In reply to: Depp, Dennis M.: "RE: IIS6 on W2k3 DCs"
• Next in thread: Sullivan Tim P: "RE: IIS6 on W2k3 DCs"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 22:55:17 -0800
To: "Depp, Dennis M." <deppdm@ornl.gov>

Aren't we all missing something here as far as this discussion of
additional protection and IIS in general?

Didn't an IIS server survive OpenHackIV with IIS, SQL and IPsec? [IIS
5 even]

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/community/columns/secmgmt/sm0105.mspx
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/community/columns/secmgmt/sm121504.mspx

*Using IPsec for Network Protection. Part 1 of 2*
Last month I introduced you to IPsec, a wonderful but sometimes
bewildering bit of technology. Now that you understand what it is and
how it works, this month I'd like to highlight IPSec's ability to help
solve three common security problems.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnnetsec/html/openhack.asp

I know about it...but know that I need wizards to help me do it
right..... but that's just me. I like wizards to help me do my job.
Command lines that include "netsh ipsec static add filter" needs to be
made easier IMHO.

Susan

Depp, Dennis M. wrote:

>Tim,
>
>I find your comments interesting. "Organizations who want fault
>tolerance put resources (AKA roles) on separate boxes." This has
>nothing to do with fault tolerance. If I have a machine with 1 role or
>a machine with 50 roles, it is still a single point of failure. The
>fact that a machine with 50 roles affects more people does not make it
>any more or less of a single point of failure. To eliminate the single
>point of failure, I have to use some type of redundancy. In the case of
>domain controllers, this redundancy is accomplished by adding a separate
>domain controller. In the case of a web server, Network Load Balancing
>can be used. In either case the cost of this redundancy is usually
>double the hardware costs. For a Small Buisness, this is not practical.
>SBS helps small buisness by providing a lower priced alternative. The
>drawback to SBS is it limits your expandability. For a small buisness
>this may be a good trade off.
>
>Dennis
>
>Sullivan Tim P wrote:
>
>
>
>>SBS doesnt have a choice.
>>
>>Your box is your domain controller, and its your exchange server, so it
>>has to have IIS installed. No way around it. That doesnt mean its not
>>going against a common school of thought based on good sensible
>>practice.
>>
>>This seems to be a common topic, but again the more you have on one
>>
>>
>box,
>
>
>>the more you lose should that one box crash, have a hardware failure,
>>
>>
>or
>
>
>>be stolen by gypsies. It then comes down to the tolerance level of your
>>organization to something like this.
>>
>>So....
>>
>>Organizations who want fault tolerance put resources (AKA roles) on
>>seperate boxes. DC on one, mail on another, web server on another. Your
>>web server may not even be on the domain.
>>
>>So is the desktop the biggest threat, probobly, but your DC is (I would
>>say) your most important machine on the network, and should be
>>
>>
>protected
>
>
>>accordingly. Should it fail, AD, exchange, and everything else,
>>including your desktop's and user accounts, are gone. Have fun
>>
>>
>restoring
>>from tape, or your ASR, if one was made.
>
>
>>Number of employees shouldn't dictate a choice between SBS and
>>
>>
>sepearate
>
>
>>products, your mission requirements should.
>>
>>Tim
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Susan Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP]
>>[mailto:sbradcpa@pacbell.net]
>>Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2005 8:12 PM
>>To: Joe Blatz
>>Cc: focus-ms@securityfocus.com
>>Subject: Re: IIS6 on W2k3 DCs
>>
>>I may be laughed from here to kingdom come on this listserve...but I
>>gotta ask....
>>
>>Common best practices for whom? Define a role please? What is "common
>>best practices" may not be good enough for one person, but may be just
>>fine for another. What are they doing with this box? Exposing it to
>>the web as a web server...yeah I'd still argue that's insanity.
>>
>>But Small Business Server 2003 runs with IIS on our domain controller.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>Where's MY security risks these days? Not my server..nope......it's my
>>desktops where my security risks lie.
>>
>>Port 80 is closed on my server but IIS is still on there. On the
>>outside is Firewall, intrusion detection and what not. Running with XP
>>sp2 firewalls on the inside but still need to get to more use of user
>>mode on the desktop.
>>
>>Am "I" freaking out over IIS on my domain controller? Nope. Not at
>>this moment. Am I freaking out over admin rights on desktops?
>>
>>You betcha I am... big time.
>>www.threatcode.com
>>
>>Susan...the wacko SBSer.
>>
>>Joe Blatz wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>The security guides published by many sources (NSA, MS, etc) stated
>>>that IIS4 and IIS5 do not belong on DCs. Common best practices would,
>>>in general, guide that an HTTP (IIS or otherwise) daemon doesn't
>>>
>>>
>belong
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>on DC.
>>>
>>>By referring to numerous security guides written specifically for NT4
>>>and W2k we were able to convince a customer of this. Now that IIS6 has
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>>>come out, and the customer feels that IIS6 is much safer than IIS4 and
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>>>IIS5, they want to put it back on their DCs.
>>>
>>>I am looking for sources that document that this is a bad idea. When
>>>
>>>
>it
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>comes to the NSA they don't have a guide for W2k3 but have instead
>>>pointed to Microsoft's "Windows Server 2003 Security Guide" and the
>>>
>>>
>use
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>of the "High Security" settings and templates. The MS guide does
>>>(rather subtly) show that IIS should not be on a DC. They only show
>>>
>>>
>the
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>HTTP service enabled on an IIS server, but I think this may not be
>>>direct enough for our client.
>>>
>>>Any help finding an explicit statement that IIS6 does not be belong on
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>>>a DC would be greatly appreciated.
>>>
>>>__________________________________________________
>>>Do You Yahoo!?
>>>Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>>>http://mail.yahoo.com
>>>
>>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>-
>
>
>>>----
>>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>-
>
>
>>>----
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>-
>
>
>>---
>>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>-
>
>
>>---
>>
>>
>>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>----
>
>
>>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>----
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>---
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>---
>
>
>
>

-- 
An open letter to the Security Community:: 
http://msmvps.com/bradley/archive/2004/12/12/23540.aspx
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

• Previous message: Sullivan Tim P: "RE: IIS6 on W2k3 DCs"
• In reply to: Depp, Dennis M.: "RE: IIS6 on W2k3 DCs"
• Next in thread: Sullivan Tim P: "RE: IIS6 on W2k3 DCs"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]