Hey Jason,

 

Interesting response…

 

My current environment has a separate forest/domain that is untrusted for our 
DMZ. I have a site system server in that domain running SUP, MP, and DP to 
manage the DMZ systems.

 

Are you recommending to use a secondary site server in this scenario instead?

 

Thanks,

 

Eric Morrison

 

From: listsad...@lists.myitforum.com [mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] On 
Behalf Of Jason Sandys
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2014 3:57 PM
To: mssms@lists.myitforum.com; mssms@lists.myitforum.com
Subject: RE: [mssms] Managing Servers in a DMZ

 

Not really. This value is only for MPs, not SUPs. Thus, you’re still stuck. The 
best you can do is put a secondary site in the DMZ which has a DP, SUP, and DP 
on the secondary site server and additionally put an MP from the primary into 
the DMZ as well. Then using the registry value, configure all of the DMZ 
clients to use the MP in the DMZ. You should at this point also use the 
registry value to configure all of your internal clients to use only the 
internal MP(s).

 

Alternatively, you could use some other method to patch systems in the DMZ  or 
maybe you could rely on the SUP failover to assign the proper SUP to the 
systems in the DMZ (but I wouldn’t really architect a solution counting on this 
behavior necessarily although it should and does work to my knowledge).

 

I am not a fan of this registry value as its more or less and poor man’s hack.

 

At this time, the best solution IMO is to use either HTTPS in the DMZ (although 
there are few quirks with this as well) or deploy an alternate domain/forest to 
the DMZ which will in turn dictate MP and SUP preference.

 

J

 

From: listsad...@lists.myitforum.com <mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com>  
[mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] On Behalf Of Mattias Benninge
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2014 4:46 AM
To: mssms@lists.myitforum.com <mailto:mssms@lists.myitforum.com> 
Subject: [mssms] Managing Servers in a DMZ

 

I know that this have been discussed before but I want to raise the question if 
the possibilities have been change with CU3 for 2012 R2.

 

With CU3 we get the option to limit a client to one or more specific(s) MP.

 

 

This cumulative update introduces a new registry entry for clients. This entry 
will restrict which management point (MP) a client can communicate with. This 
can be useful in environments that have multiple MPs in different forests, and 
the clients can only communicate with a subset of them. Setting the registry 
value to only those MPs that can be reached by the client can improve overall 
efficiency. The new registry value is AllowedMPs, a REG_MULTI_SZ (multi-string) 
type that is under the following subkey: 

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\CCM

 

Does this mean that we now have a viable option for setting up an MP/DP/SUP in 
DMZ?

 

If this is not an option what is the recommended/supported way for managing 
server/clients in a DMZ? What we want to do is basically patch and inventory 
servers (workgroup) in DMZ. We have PKI and certificates on all server already.


 

Regards

Mattias Benninge

http://myitforum.com/myitforumwp/author/matbe/

 

 

 




Reply via email to