Gotcha. We currently have a pair of Sidewinders in HA configuration, and for many things are using a SonicWall 2000 SSL VPN appliance, which can proxy OWA, but that's not required by our setup currently. The SonicWall doesn't do two-factor auth, but does require a local login for auth before presenting the SSL VPN 'bookmarks', so that would break ActiveSynch and RPC.
I think the Sidewinders might be capable of proxying the SSL traffic and applying an appropriate set of protections, but that's beyond my level of education for them. Kurt On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 12:26, Don Andrews <don.andr...@safeway.com> wrote: > We are using the Neoteris (Juniper?) Reverse proxy w/2 factor authentication > for OWA. I believe it does break direct access by OWA/OMA/active sync - we > use Blackberry. > > The appliances neither beak nor support activesync - they only support SMTP. > The firewall rules break it. > > --------------------------------- > Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Kurt Buff <kurt.b...@gmail.com> > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues <exchangelist@lyris.sunbelt-software.com> > Sent: Sun Nov 08 12:54:36 2009 > Subject: Re: E2k3 Security Question > > Can you tell me more about the 'reverse proxy in front of OWA' and > 'internet facing edge appliances'? Does they support ActiveSynch > devices, or does they break them? > > I ask, because I have a couple of iPhone users who I can't deny at the > moment - one is our new CEO - because I think to didn't turn off > ActiveSynch on their accounts when I set them up, and now I have to > live with it until I get a policy approved. However, if they increase > security, and are approved, but break ActiveSynch, I won't cry. I want > them to move to Blackberry's anyway. > > Kurt > > On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 11:45, Don Andrews <don.andr...@safeway.com> wrote: >> Our basic plan is, no direct internet connection to a server on the internal >> network. We use internet facing edge appliances in tier 1 DMZ then content >> filtering in tier 2, then Exchange on internal network. Reverse proxy in >> front of OWA (this is E2K3). I expect E2K7 to be similar. >> >> I realize this may not work for everyone but it is our model. >> >> --------------------------------- >> Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Peter Johnson <peter.john...@peterstow.com> >> To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues <exchangelist@lyris.sunbelt-software.com> >> Sent: Sun Nov 08 11:12:04 2009 >> Subject: RE: E2k3 Security Question >> >> Microsoft's recommendation has always been to put the Front end server/CAS >> role directly into your network behind the firewall rather than in the DMZ. >> The reasoning behind this is related to how many holes you have to punch in >> the internal firewall to allow RPC access from the FE/CAS roles to the DC"s. >> >> If you place the FE/CAS servers inside the internal network you only need to >> open one hole in your internal firewall namely 443. Of course MS recommend >> putting it behind an ISA server with FBA turned on. >> >> I've always run my Exchange Servers this way and have never had a security >> guy call me on it. >> >> >> >> Kind Regards >> Peter Johnson >> I.T Architect >> United Kingdom:+44 1285 65842 >> South Africa: +27 11 252 1100 >> Swaziland: +268 442 7000 >> Fax:+27 11 974 7130 >> Mobile: +2783 306 0019 >> peter.john...@peterstow.com >> >> This email message (including attachments) contains information which may be >> confidential and/or legally privileged. Unless you are the intended >> recipient, you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any >> information contained in the message or from any attachments that were sent >> with this email, and If you have received this email message in error, >> please advise the sender by email, and delete the message. Unauthorised >> disclosure and/or use of information contained in this email may result in >> civil and criminal liability. Everything in this e-mail and attachments >> relating to the official business of Peterstow Aquapower is proprietary to >> the company. >> >> Caution should be observed in placing any reliance upon any information >> contained in this e-mail, which is not intended to be a representation or >> inducement to make any decision in relation to Peterstow Aquapower. Any >> decision taken based on the information provided in this e-mail, should only >> be made after consultation with appropriate legal, regulatory, tax, >> technical, business, investment, financial, and accounting advisors. Neither >> the sender of the e-mail, nor Peterstow Aquapower shall be liable to any >> party for any direct, indirect or consequential damages, including, without >> limitation, loss of profit, interruption of business or loss of information, >> data or software or otherwise. >> >> The e-mail address of the sender may not be used, copied, sold, disclosed or >> incorporated into any database or mailing list for spamming and/or other >> marketing purposes without the prior consent of Peterstow Aquapower. >> >> No warranties are created or implied that an employee of Peterstow Aquapower >> and/or a contractor of Peterstow Aquapower is authorized to create and send >> this e-mail. >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Kurt Buff [mailto:kurt.b...@gmail.com] >> Sent: 08 November 2009 19:42 >> To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues >> Subject: E2k3 Security Question >> >> All, >> >> We've got a consultant in-house doing an infrastructure review. One of >> the things he's recommending for security reasons is that instead of >> doing SSL direct to our single Exchange servers on our production >> LANs, we should put front-end servers into our DMZ. >> >> I tend to believe that direct SSL (for OWA or RPC/HTTPS) is no less >> secure than a front-end in a DMZ, but I do confess ignorance, and >> would like to know more, and have ammunition one way or the other >> before getting bent out of shape. >> >> Where can I find some documents regarding the relative security of >> these two approaches, and evaluate this for myself before agreeing or >> disagreeing with him on this? >> >> I've been cruising the history of this list, and doing some googling, >> but can't see a direct discussion of this topic. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Kurt >> >> > > > >
