On Fri, 5 Apr 2002, Mikael Olsson wrote:

> > [on L7 inspection]
> > There's an interesting counter-argument that entails giving up trying to
> > control what the lusers do.  Give them AV, give them a desktop protection
> > product, and make them gateway in to the corporate resources, or give them
> > "remote display" access only (Citrix, Terminal Server, Xwindows...)
>
> Interesting. I think I hate it, but, nevertheless, interesting.
>
> Doesn't this sort of break horribly as soon as someone lands a trojan
> on one of those desktops?

Well, you'd probably want the desktop protection thing to do some stopping
of that, and I suppose IDS, but a trojan on the desktop still only gets
the attacker the display of the luser in question, and no direct server
compromise.

> (I myself generally use remote display type stuff to tunnel OUT to
> less secure networks rather than the other way around so I haven't
> given too much thought to it.)

That's an additional mechanism.

> > It's not the admin that wants that stuff, it's the admin that has to
> > enable that stuff, and when it's a checkbox with no consistancy of
> > inspection or tracking it doesn't matter which type of firewall you have.
> > There are enough bad examples on all sides.
>
> Sheesh, aren't you staying current? ;)
>
> The everyday admin these days isn't getting high blood pressure over
> users and management demanding new services. The everyday admin these
> days is the tech-savvy luser that wants to run kazaa to get movies and
> games, and then play said games, and that swears over firewall vendors
> being slow in supporting SIP and NAT traversal through UPnP [2].

*laf*

> [2] UPnP looks like a nice can of worms. I wonder who'll be first in
> convincing some internal application to bore inbound holes through
> UPnP-enabled firewalls for them.

I'm waiting for the first UPnP Linux-loading worm ;)

Paul
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul D. Robertson      "My statements in this message are personal opinions
[EMAIL PROTECTED]      which may have no basis whatsoever in fact."

_______________________________________________
Firewalls mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.gnac.net/mailman/listinfo/firewalls

Reply via email to