Jeff,

                   |                              |
                    |          Internet            |
     Corp A         |                              |       Corp B
                    |                              |
                    |                              |
                    |                              |
+---------------+   |                              |  +---------------+
| System J      |<===================================>| System K      |
|(part of app Z)|   |         "X protocol"         |  |(part of app Z)|
+---------------+   |                              |  +---------------+
                    |                              |
                    |                              |
                    |                              |
                    |                              |
                    |                              |
               A's Security                  B's Security
                Perimeter                     Perimeter
|                                                                      |
|                                                                      |
+---------------------------- Span of App "Z" -------------------------+



#..that having proxy support (in perimeter security systems) for a given
#protocol, such as "X", is desirable. What if some folks in your company
come
#to you wanting to deploy an app such as "Z", using new protocol "X" which
#doesn't yet have off-the-shelf proxy support? Is that necessarily a
#showstopper (from your perspective)? Would folks be willing to roll their
own
#proxy (at least to get going) as Bill hints? Or might early deployment
trials
#and phases be run over an open pass-through port, with proxies being
#incorporated as such support for protocol "X" emerges?

The issue here is that they are making connections into your network.  If I
was running security at corp B then I would place system K on a DMZ(in this
case a third network card off of the firewall) and allow internal people
who needed access to system K to connect to it through the firewall.  I
would prefer a real application layer proxy for protocol X since I cannot
"roll my own" complete with application layer checks but I would use a
generic proxy to pass it to the dmz.

#So, it seems to me, layering app protocols such as "X" on SOAP-over-HTTP
isn't
#necessarily a panacea for "going through firewalls" -- those of you who're

#running HTTP proxies will likely easily notice SOAP going through port 80,

#though in {some | many?) cases you'll have to configure stuff to
explicitly
#look for it (yes?).

I would not allow HTTP connection that are generated externally through my
firewall to the internal network, either.  I also would run an application
layer HTTP proxy that denies SOAP.  Since I know that protocol X is only
used in this one instance I am much more likely to allow it through than to
allow through something like SOAP that can be used for more than just
communications by app Z.

Regards,
Jeffery Gieser

-
[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]

Reply via email to