I particially agree with you Paul in that a router is there to do routing but the overhead of routing is low and the router is well able to withstand a bit of filtering too. Certainly large complicated filter rule sets will put an overhead on the router but that does not mean you shouldn't use any filtering on your router. Your router should block broadcasts going all over the place for one and certainly remote telnet to your router should be disabled. These are both filtering rules and I don't see why you shouldn't add a small few more rules to route more specifically and get the value out of your router and get extra security to boot. The logging situation is quickly solved with a central logging system for your DMZ setup.
In very many setups the router is the first line of defence and also the first piece of equipment in need of defending. Just look at the potential of GRE tunnels to realise the damage that could be done by a breached router. Netbios broadcasts leaving a router will reveal far more information then would be desired by any network admin. In this list server just recently one member has asked about heartbeat traffic showing up on his IDS. Router filter rules in my very humble oppion are needed and I certainly advise anyone who cares to listen (they are few and far between) that the router should be very secure and well hardened. I would never consider a router a firewall alternative however. Trevor Cushen Sysnet Ltd www.sysnet.ie Tel: +353 1 2983000 Fax: +353 1 2960499 -----Original Message----- From: Paul Stewart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 30 January 2003 17:17 To: 'Geoff Shatz'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Router Packet Filtering and Firewalls In my opinion.. This is a great question..:) The more the better is always the thought however when I configure such scenarios I prefer to have there firewall do the blocking and leave the router to do just routing (which it's best at anyways IMHO).... This way you have one place to gather logging from and analysis. Of course I'm presuming that you are logging the denies and possibly permits against syslog or something similar... I realize in this setup you only have one box protecting you versus potentionally two.... But I like routers to do routing and firewalls to do firewalling.... Just my two cents worth.... This also keeps loading down on the router if you have a busy link... Opinions on this would be really good.. I'd love to hear what others are doing...:) --- Paul Stewart Network Solutions Specialist Nexicom Inc. -----Original Message----- From: Geoff Shatz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 5:55 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Router Packet Filtering and Firewalls I am trying to confirm my thoughts regarding the use of router packet filtering in addition to having a firewall behind the router but first a little background... Years ago when we first connected our firm to the Internet we did not have a firewall but used packet filtering on the router to protect our perimeter. As time progressed and security became a much greater issue for everyone in IT we moved forward an installed a firewall between our router and the LAN. I was managing our router at that time and kept the initial packet filters in place as I figured two layers of security were better than one. A few years ago we were forced to switch ISP's and our new ISP managed the router they supplied to us. They supplied the router with no ACL's applied to either interface which as I understand it with Cisco IOS creates an implicit permit for both inbound and outbound. After contacting technical support I was told none of their customers use packet filtering at the router level and that's what a firewall was for. I had a small battle with them but they finally relented and configured the router the way I asked them to. We just had a second circuit installed and I had to go through the same routine with them and the end result was the same. Am I missing something here? Is it not better to have both packet filtering applied on the router and a firewall behind it? Is there something inherently wrong with this or is this just a case of our ISP not really giving a damn about security and on top of it being lazy? Any comments would be appreciated. -Geoff ************************************************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this message in error please notify SYSNET Ltd., at telephone no: +353-1-2983000 or [EMAIL PROTECTED] **************************************************************************************