Re: Should I install Certificate Authority to solve these problems ?

From: Roger Abell (mvpNOSpam_at_asu.edu)
Date: 10/30/04

  • Next message: Steven L Umbach: "Re: Ports - WAN Miniport"
    Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 13:03:05 -0700
    
    

    You can use IPsec with or without certs from your PKI.
    It just depends on how you want/need to define it. If you
    base it on Kerberos you pretty much limit hard binding
    negotiations to your AD machines or those trusting the
    realm. If it generally advised that your root CA be kept
    secured, in an offline state, with a subordinate used for
    daily operation. Hence the extra machine.
    With the Compaq / HP management systems there are
    effectively two flavors - with and without the hardware
    card which has its own net wire. Without, then you can
    subject all traffic to IPsec. With bypasses the OS and
    you have a different set of considerations. There have
    been security patches for the apps, which I guess means
    that like any net-visible application you are better off
    with its accessibility protectively layered.

    -- 
    Roger Abell
    "Marlon Brown" <marlon_brownj@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:ep07X9ovEHA.3792@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
    > Thank you Roger ! Migration to Win2003 is six months away and the network
    > team was planning to implement IPSec in our Win2003 domain.
    > Can you please tell me why I would need two servers to create the
    > certificate authority then ?
    >
    > In the item 1 below, the tool in use is a HP server management tool (type
    of
    > Insigth Management that let you use certificates). The new manager is
    > arguing that somebody can "spoof the system and a rogue server could
    pretend
    > to be HPManageTool and change our production server's configuration".
    > Let's see, if the fellow is using strong passwords on administrator
    accounts
    > on servers that should protect against that as you mentioned. In addition,
    > making sure that the users others than administrators are not members of
    > local administrators on the server is another layer of protection as well
    > that obviously we have in place.
    > If you can explain if Kerberos can also protect against such "spoofing"
    > described in the scenario above, please let me know.
    > If I understand one of your comments correctly, regarding the "secure
    > channels" between Windows server machines, I attempted to configure that
    in
    > the past in Group Policies and I was told by MS support that was a good
    game
    > plan to wait until migration to Win2003, since those features have been
    > enhanced.
    >
    > Regarding providing "encryption" against people that can use a sniffer to
    > decode packets across our internal network, my answer would be that we are
    > planning to deploy IPSec after migrating to WIn2003 and that should
    provide
    > encryption across the domain. I am wondering if by deploying IPSec and
    > providing data encryption, it would still viable and necessary put a PKI
    > infrastructure in place ?
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > "Roger Abell" <mvpNOSpam@asu.edu> wrote in message
    > news:ecRIoZmvEHA.2564@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
    > > Beginning next year is two months away, or four, or six ?
    > > Implementing a PKI requires some thought, server builds,
    > > etc..  It seems your W2k/W2k3 versioning is secondary
    > > consideration to time to do it right.
    > > However, for nothing that you mentioned is a PKI the only
    > > way to do things.  In fact, for both of the two specific cases
    > > you mention at the end, there is some confusion if having
    > > a CA is thought to be important to them.
    > >
    > > comments inlined below . . .
    > > -- 
    > > Roger Abell
    > >
    > > "Marlon Brown" <marlon_brownj@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > > news:uq8OpXkvEHA.3200@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
    > >> I am on Win2000 Domain. I am planning to go to Win2003 beginning next
    > > year.
    > >>
    > >> Management (non technical) is pushing to get Certificate Authority
    > > installed
    > >> on my domain now.
    > >>
    > > You have told them that this requires a minimum of two machines
    > > to do it right, yes ?
    > >
    > >> I would like to evaluate if the problems below really require a
    > > Certificate
    > >> Authority to solve those issues below ? Does it make sense create a
    > >> Certificate Authority now (domain), or should I migrate to WIn2003 and
    > > take
    > >> advantage of potential enhanced features there ? If I use IPSec on
    > > Win2003,
    > >> I would need a Certificate Authority in the domain, right ?
    > >>
    > > answer to the last question is NO, others commented upon earlier
    > >
    > >> Is it viable installing a Certificate Authority to solve the problems
    > > below
    > >> ?
    > >>
    > > No
    > >
    > >> 1) A server management tool can use certificates when the servers
    > >> communicate with one another to verify each other's identity. The guy
    is
    > >> afraid that someone in the internal organization could pretend to be
    > >> RealServermanagement tool and change another server's configuration.
    > >>
    > >> Does Kerberos provide protection against this ?
    > >>
    > > What server management tool ?
    > > The mmc based tools MS provides with the operating system?
    > > Or some third-party application?
    > > There is misunderstanding all over in this.  If the guy is afraid,
    > > then he perhaps does not understand the strength of the safeguards
    > > that are already in place (at least if deployed correctly).
    > > The tools from MS act only subject to security checks based on
    > > the context of the account in use.  "change another server's config"
    > > seems to imply the concern is over an admin fooling with the
    > > wrong machine - which can be avoided if the admin is a plain
    > > user everywhere except as a local admin on the intended machine.
    > > Kerberos underlies the user identity and authorization.
    > > The machines can be configured to secure their communications
    > > and this may be done at different level of strength (with accompanying
    > > overheads).  But making sure machines are who they are in their
    > > exchanges, and/or limiting what machines may speak in which ways
    > > with other machines are things that may be configured, even without
    > > use of a CA - and doing these does not mean a "management tool"
    > > will only be use the right way by the right person.
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> 2) A client machine accesses a browser connecting to a third-party
    > >> application server. Assume text is trasmitted in clear text. If I use
    > > IPSec
    > >> to encrypt communications. do I need to install the Certificate
    authority
    > > ?
    > >>
    > > If by browser you mean web use, then this only requires that the
    > > webserver have a cert from a recognized cert authority so that the
    > > web traffic can be https (use SSL).  If the third-party server is not
    > > yours then this means they need to do this, using a cert authority
    > > your browser will recognize.  For an in-house use one certainly
    > > can use one's own PKI to provide the needed certs - but having
    > > any party other than one' in-house participants involved usually
    > > means use of a public cert authority.
    > >
    > >
    >
    >
    

  • Next message: Steven L Umbach: "Re: Ports - WAN Miniport"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: Should I install Certificate Authority to solve these problems ?
      ... team was planning to implement IPSec in our Win2003 domain. ... arguing that somebody can "spoof the system and a rogue server could pretend ... >> Management is pushing to get Certificate Authority ... > You have told them that this requires a minimum of two machines ...
      (microsoft.public.win2000.security)
    • Re: Resolving NETBIOS names
      ... of windows networking issues. ... You don't need a Wins server - that's a service that claims ... naming authority for all your machines on your network. ...
      (uk.comp.os.linux)
    • Re: SBS Server keeps shutting down
      ... as we have had a few power cuts recently and the server kept chugging along. ... I have no idea what IPSec is ... multiple reboot mentioned above and some other troubleshooting steps ...
      (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
    • Performance optimization vs satisficing (was Language Oriented Programming)
      ... >machines that were too small. ... Microsoft has been a leading offender here. ... >arcane issue for server engines. ... magnitude slower, yes, I recall working on a 200mb database, trying to ...
      (comp.object)
    • Re: L2TP/IPSec Verbindung läuft mit XP SP2 nicht mehr
      ... In XPSP2 the IPsec driver needs a registry setting when either the ... server or workstation are behind a NAT gateway. ... 1- Client initiates to a server that is behind the NAT ... > Peer Private Addr ...
      (microsoft.public.de.german.windowsxp.networking)