Re: Firewall best practices
Carson Gaspar <[email protected]> Tue, 27 Apr 2010 16:41:04 -0500
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.security.firewalls.wizards |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Marcus J. Ranum wrote: > I wasn't referring to anything in specific; I think, though, > that we've moved past the point where we can think of firewalls > as just source/dest IP source/dest port and we need to start > characterizing genres and sub-genres of traffic. There was a > time when Jon Postel said that "Email is the new datagram" > but now "HTTP is the new IP" - we've lost the battle on trying > to have HTTP just be a fetch protocol for data; it's now a > much more complicated thing with genres and sub-genres and > probably sub-sub-genres of traffic. We can't meaningfully > "firewall" traffic if "permit source HTTP ANY" includes > VPNs, bidirectional commands, voice data, and who knows > what else? Once upon a time I did some serious thinking about a signature based firewall, that cared only a little about port numbers, and a lot about packet content. It would necessarily involve an update cycle similar to anti-virus signature updates. I've seen some work on this, mostly from a traffic shaping / IPS / IDS slant, but I haven't seen anything serious from the firewall front. But then I haven't been doing firewalls for several years, so I may just be behind the times. > You're completely right about the "if the application > emulates HTTPS traffic" problem. I don't have an answer > to that one other than "we warned everyone that that > was going to be a problem." At this point, it's less > of technical problem than a social one. It seems to me that > an organization cannot claim to be concerned about > security while allowing user-oriented encrypted outgoing > links to any target. That's just foolishness. The fact > that "everyone does it" doesn't make it any less foolish. > Back in the proxy days we advocated tying outgoing > connections to an authenticated user; that's another > important aspect of the problem that gets short shrift. See my previous (or possibly next, post moderstion...) post re: SSL MITM proxies. Of course that just puts you back at the first problem, except you may detect rogue apps by their non-acceptance of your magic CA cert. -- Carson