RE: Question about dmz security

From: Marc Suttle (marc.suttle@anidirect.com)
Date: 02/17/03

  • Next message: Tim Heagarty: "Law office recommendations?"
    From: Marc Suttle <marc.suttle@anidirect.com>
    To: "'David M. Fetter'" <dfetter@setec-astronomy.biz>, Jennifer Fountain <JFountain@rbinc.com>
    Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 11:25:43 -0600
    
    

    You could have a dedicated nick on the dmz going to a dedicated nick on the
    internal network. However I would just recommend you disable that nick and
    put the traffic rules you need on the firewall for the dmz to internal.

    M

    -----Original Message-----
    From: David M. Fetter [mailto:dfetter@setec-astronomy.biz]
    Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 5:49 PM
    To: Jennifer Fountain
    Cc: security-basics@securityfocus.com
    Subject: Re: Question about dmz security

    That's definitely a security risk because that system essentially
    bypasses your firewall altogether. You are right in your suggestion.

    Jennifer Fountain wrote:
    > I need an opinion on a current design implementation in place. We have
    > an ftp server sitting in our dmz. This box has two nics - one is
    > plugged into the dmz hub and one is plugged into our network. I think
    > this is a security risk and we should just allow internal users access
    > to the box via the firewall by opening the port instead of having dual
    > nics. they do not see a security risk. maybe i am just too new at this
    > and need some education. what is the "best" way to implement this
    > configuration?
    >
    >
    > Thank you
    > Jenn Fountain
    >

    -- 
    David M. Fetter (MegaSurge) - http://www.setec-astronomy.biz/
    "The world is full of power and energy and a person can go far by just 
    skimming off a tiny bit of it." Neal Stephenson - Snow Crash