RE: Remote Desktop vs VPN on Windows 2003
From: Paris E. Stone (pstone_at_alhurra.com)
Date: 01/19/05
- Previous message: Danux: "Re: Building a Company Computer Use/Security Policy"
- Maybe in reply to: Jeff Randall: "Remote Desktop vs VPN on Windows 2003"
- Next in thread: Paris E. Stone: "RE: Remote Desktop vs VPN on Windows 2003"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 20:03:58 -0500 To: "John McGuire" <jmcguire81@cox.net>, <security-basics@securityfocus.com>
That looks like an IPS to me.
Putting out bogus services, like ForeScout's Active Scout.
Are we on the right track?
So it isn't just Security through Obscurity, but some other layers of
defense as well?
Or is the host compromised?
-----Original Message-----
From: John McGuire [mailto:jmcguire81@cox.net]
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 5:18 PM
To: security-basics@securityfocus.com
Subject: RE: Remote Desktop vs VPN on Windows 2003
I'm guessing either Microsoft-ds on 445 or H.323/Q.931 on 1720.
On a side note, do you know about subseven on 27374? I've only seen this
on infected machines, so I thought I'd let you know.
John McGuire
BlackLight Systems
-----Original Message-----
From: Roger A. Grimes [mailto:roger@banneretcs.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 11:53 AM
To: Paris E. Stone; Jeff Randall; security-basics@securityfocus.com
Subject: RE: Remote Desktop vs VPN on Windows 2003
Security through obscurity is a type of security, and it works...just
not in a vacuum...and not alone.
Almost all major Internet worms would have be rendered defenseless by
simply changing the port number one port up. 99.9% of hacks are
automated using worms, viruses, and malicious scripts. Almost of of
them (9999.99%) only look on the default port. Fastest worm ever..SQL
Slammer...only worked on the default SQL port. Code Red...only port 80.
Spambots look for ports 25 and 80. FTP exploits ONLY look for port 21. I
could go on and on.
Security by obscurity works, and works well. Come find my RDP port on my
domain at banneretcs.com. Prize (free book) to the first person who
finds it. Go.
Roger
************************************************************************
***
*Roger A. Grimes, Banneret Computer Security, Computer Security
Consultant
*CPA, CISSP, MCSE: Security (NT/2000/2003/MVP), CNE (3/4), CEH, CHFI
*email: roger@banneretcs.com
*cell: 757-615-3355
*Author of Malicious Mobile Code: Virus Protection for Windows by
O'Reilly
*http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/malmobcode
*Author of Honeypots for Windows (Apress)
*http://www.apress.com/book/bookDisplay.html?bID=281
************************************************************************
****
-----Original Message-----
From: Paris E. Stone [mailto:pstone@alhurra.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 10:40 AM
To: Roger A. Grimes; Jeff Randall; security-basics@securityfocus.com
Subject: RE: Remote Desktop vs VPN on Windows 2003
"Security through Obscurity" i.e. put it on a different port, is not
security at all.
Rdesktop on the internet, is generally a bad idea, no matter what port
it runs on.
Put a firewall in front of it if possible, if not, run a software
firewall and then add openvpn.
www.openvpn.net is free, and will allow IPSEC connectivity that you can
use to access the machine, then you get MSTSC(remote desktop) access
over the tunnel.
-----Original Message-----
From: Roger A. Grimes [mailto:roger@banneretcs.com]
Sent: Friday, January 14, 2005 5:16 PM
To: Jeff Randall; security-basics@securityfocus.com
Subject: RE: Remote Desktop vs VPN on Windows 2003
I can think of NO reason not to use Remote Desktop. Remote Desktop is
fast and secure. Everything is encrypted past the logon name. To get
additional security assurance, change the default TCP port from 3389 to
something randomly high...like 58645 (which you can do with a regedit on
the server...just google it). Then add the new port number to your
server address...like www.example.com:58645.
Roger
************************************************************************
***
*Roger A. Grimes, Banneret Computer Security, Computer Security
Consultant *CPA, CISSP, MCSE: Security (NT/2000/2003/MVP), CNE (3/4),
CEH, CHFI
*email: roger@banneretcs.com
*cell: 757-615-3355
*Author of Malicious Mobile Code: Virus Protection for Windows by
O'Reilly *http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/malmobcode
*Author of Honeypots for Windows (Apress)
*http://www.apress.com/book/bookDisplay.html?bID=281
************************************************************************
****
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Randall [mailto:Jeff.Randall@ksg-llc.net]
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2005 3:23 PM
To: security-basics@securityfocus.com
Subject: Remote Desktop vs VPN on Windows 2003
I have setup a web server running win2k3 and was curious about remotely
accessing it with an XP box. Only one requirement, it has to be FREE.
=20
Here is what I have setup and as of now working but I would like in the
end to only run one.
1. RRAS using PPTP. It's not a DC so I use local accounts.
2. VNC. TiteVNC to be specific.
3. Remote Desktop - went into the admin tools and set the
encryption level to high.
Please no crazy setups like upgrade to DC and run IAS for Radius or
running IPSEC tunnels, just would like peoples thoughts on the security
level of each of these programs and what they feel are the most secure.
If you can get specific about encryption, keys, key lengths, that would
be great. Thanks
- Previous message: Danux: "Re: Building a Company Computer Use/Security Policy"
- Maybe in reply to: Jeff Randall: "Remote Desktop vs VPN on Windows 2003"
- Next in thread: Paris E. Stone: "RE: Remote Desktop vs VPN on Windows 2003"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
