Firewall Wizards mailing list archives
Re: Application requires VPN - How are these handled?
From: Mikael Olsson <mikael.olsson () clavister com>
Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2003 20:02:51 +0200
Michele Jordan wrote:
[I don't want to put a VPN client machine on my network]
Funny, I posted about this matter on another mailing list not 24 hours ago. Here's a copy: Someone else wrote:
[$bigco won't allow lan-to-lan tunnels. grumble.]
I'd just like to point out here that, as far as security is concerned, this is basically a kick in the face. The assumption here is that your security is much worse than their security. Whether or not this is _true_ is more than I can say, but, nevertheless, that's the assumption. By only allowing access from one or a few workstations, they assume that their security improves measurably. (It most likely doesn't; if someone is free to muck about on your LAN, said someone can get control over said workstations and use the tunnel freely). I can however tell you that it measurably worsens _your_ security. If someone has access to _their_ LAN, they have an open tunnel to the inside of your network that you have no control over what so ever. Actually, one could convincingly argue that they worsen their own security stance by mandating single-box clients. Assume that you do work for two large companies. A and B. They both mandate single-box VPN clients. As previously mentioned, you have no control over what enters your network through the VPN connection. Now, assume that A and B are fierce competitors. Here's a scenario: - A attacks your workstation; there's nothing stopping them - From that workstation, the leap is very short to the next one, which happens to have a tunnel to company B - A can attack B, using the workstations on your LAN as a springboard Now, assume that these were LAN-to-LAN tunnels instead, with proper security controls in place. Here's what'd happen: - A attempts to attack workstations or servers on your LAN. - Your firewall repels them; they have no business connecting to your LAN whatsoever, so you don't allow any of it. Of course, there's also the whole issue with A or B becoming compromised and the problem spreading to your network, or someone at A and B simply deciding to royally screw you over, but that's a different thought exercise and does not involve any problem for _them_, so that argument only works if they care about _you_. -- Mikael Olsson, Clavister AB Storgatan 12, Box 393, SE-891 28 ÖRNSKÖLDSVIK, Sweden Phone: +46 (0)660 29 92 00 Mobile: +46 (0)70 26 222 05 Fax: +46 (0)660 122 50 WWW: http://www.clavister.com _______________________________________________ firewall-wizards mailing list firewall-wizards () honor icsalabs com http://honor.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards
Current thread:
- Application requires VPN - How are these handled? Michele Jordan (Apr 01)
- Re: Application requires VPN - How are these handled? Mikael Olsson (Apr 01)
- Re: Application requires VPN - How are these handled? Paul Robertson (Apr 01)
- Re: Application requires VPN - How are these handled? Mikael Olsson (Apr 01)
- Re: Application requires VPN - How are these handled? Paul Robertson (Apr 01)
- Re: Application requires VPN - How are these handled? Mike Scher (Apr 02)
- tunnel vs open a hole Anton A. Chuvakin (Apr 06)
- Re: tunnel vs open a hole Marcus J. Ranum (Apr 06)
- Re: tunnel vs open a hole Barney Wolff (Apr 06)
- Re: tunnel vs open a hole Marcus J. Ranum (Apr 06)
- Re: tunnel vs open a hole Crispin Cowan (Apr 07)
- Re: tunnel vs open a hole Barney Wolff (Apr 07)
- Re: Application requires VPN - How are these handled? Paul Robertson (Apr 01)
- Re: Application requires VPN - How are these handled? Mikael Olsson (Apr 01)
