Re: Port 135 Probes Continue

From: Nico Kadel-Garcia (nkadel_at_comcast.net)
Date: 01/11/04

  • Next message: CBFalconer: "Re: Is memcpy secure?" 
    Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 17:29:17 -0500

    "Walter Roberson" <roberson@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca> wrote in message
    news:bsqo5i$88u$1@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca...
    > In article <MPG.1a5a8cc8a0b9bf9698a011@news-server.columbus.rr.com>,
    > Leythos <void@nowhere.com> wrote:
    > :If you are using MS Exchange over an open connection you need to fire
    > :the IT staff or get a new hosting company. You should be using ANY form
    > :of VPN connection in place of an open Exchange connector.
    >
    > You assume, Leythos, that the IT staff have the budget and authority
    > to purchase appropriate VPN equipment and deploy it.

    Authority, yes. Budget? The only budget item is manpower for the project.
    Take a careful look at FreeSwan if you prefer IPsec, or at www.poptop.org
    for the UNIX/Linux based PPTP server that handles Microsoft's built-in VPN
    clients without pain. They can be hosted on quite a low end little machine,
    including a discarded old laptop, and even run from CD instead of from disk
    for security reasons.

    > I have the authority to deploy VPN equipment locally, but not the
    > budget to purchase it. Fortunately, a few years ago I was able to get
    > some equipment covered under a grant for joint work with an
    > organization required by law to protect its data; if the grant
    > committee had thought there was a legal option not to use the
    > equipment, then they could have done a line-item veto of it.

    Yeah, leverage to create a new service can be quite hard.

    > I have no authority or budget to deploy VPN equipment at HQ,
    > and no travel authority to go to HQ to deploy even if appropriate
    > equipment were to "fall off the truck" into my hands.
    >
    > The Exchange people at HQ have no authority or budget to deploy
    > networking equipment beyond their office.

    Then they have not the authority or budget to use those services outside of
    their own local network. Period, end of discussion.

    > The networking people at HQ have no authority or budget to deploy
    > security-related networking equipment -- in particular they have
    > no authority to install security-related equipment at the regional
    > sites.

    They don't have to install a single piece of hardware remotely. The
    capability of using a VPN is already built into the Win2K and WinXP clients.
    They may need to get the remote clients admins to open a firewal hole to
    allow GRE packets to HQ, but that's amazingly vastly superior to insisting
    that they keeping the file-sharing or RPC ports open.

    > The security people at HQ have the authority to hold consultations with
    > the affected parties and recommend a policy change that would give them
    > authority to deploy security-related equipment at the regional sites.
    > But they don't have any budget and they don't have the human resources.

    Human resources, I can believe. They probably have to waste a lot of
    man-hours cleaning up after the debris caused by leaving such services open:
    it's penny-wise, pound-foolish, and a decent VPN setup would provide vastly
    safer access for their own authorized staff in the field, to any services
    they wish to allow.

    > They did make the appropriate internal applications for the funds, but
    > the budget committee turned them down this year; they are hoping they
    > will be able to roll out VPN services by this time next year, if they
    > are able to get the funding.

    Have them come talk to us if you need help explaining the facts of life: it
    sounds like you've got a lot of "process" going on there, at the expense of
    basic support or engineering, and reading between the lines I suspect you're
    frustrated with it yourself.

  • Next message: CBFalconer: "Re: Is memcpy secure?"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: Port 135 Probes Continue
      ... >:of VPN connection in place of an open Exchange connector. ... > You assume, Leythos, that the IT staff have the budget and authority ... > to purchase appropriate VPN equipment and deploy it. ... Authority, yes. ...
      (comp.os.linux.security)
    • Re: Port 135 Probes Continue
      ... >:of VPN connection in place of an open Exchange connector. ... > You assume, Leythos, that the IT staff have the budget and authority ... > to purchase appropriate VPN equipment and deploy it. ... Authority, yes. ...
      (comp.security.unix)
    • Re: Port 135 Probes Continue
      ... You assume, Leythos, that the IT staff have the budget and authority ... I have the authority to deploy VPN equipment locally, ...
      (comp.security.misc)
    • Re: Port 135 Probes Continue
      ... You assume, Leythos, that the IT staff have the budget and authority ... I have the authority to deploy VPN equipment locally, ...
      (comp.os.linux.security)
    • Re: Port 135 Probes Continue
      ... You assume, Leythos, that the IT staff have the budget and authority ... I have the authority to deploy VPN equipment locally, ...
      (comp.security.unix)