Re: [isapros] Re: ISA, Exchange 2007 and Perimeter NetworksTrue that it did, but it is still the one instance of such.. in future there will be more and im not sure i will be prepared to not take other measures to prevent its infection on my network. but ill use it as a first method. greg ----- Original Message ----- From: Jim Harrison To: isapros@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 2:14 PM Subject: [isapros] Re: ISA, Exchange 2007 and Perimeter Networks "- me thinks not!" - I'll agree with that. ISA RPC publishing protected every swingin' Exch server that was published thusly from that nasty beasty known as Blaster. Literally No Other "firewall" can truthfully make that claim. From: isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jason Jones Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 4:56 PM To: isapros@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [isapros] Re: ISA, Exchange 2007 and Perimeter Networks "It's as safe in the domain as in the DMZ if it's being protected by a properly configured ISA box..." Hmmm...so what if your FE *does* gets compromised? ISA is impressive, but it can't always protect against published server application vulnerabilites. As an example - does ISA protect FE servers against RPC attacks when publishing RPC over HTTP using web publishing then?? - me thinks not! When ISA is protecting RPC over HTTP all filtering is in the HTTP domain, so ISA has no way of knowing if the RPC data being tunnelled is valid or not. Once the packets reach the FE they are then decapsulated by the RPC proxy, and could in theory, be malicious. This is why using secure Exchange RPC publishing is the best security solution, but most people just publish RPC/HTTP and hence only really inspect HTTP data. Don't forget, we are talking about Internet connections to Exchange services on a FE/CAS - even with ISA in place, there will still be ways to attack the FE. Yes they are greatly limited, but still there. Jason Jones | Silversands Limited | Desk: +44 (0)1202 360489 | Mobile: +44 (0)7971 500312 | Fax: +44 (0)1202 360900 | Email: jason.jones@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Steve Moffat Sent: 11 January 2007 00:36 To: isapros@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [isapros] Re: ISA, Exchange 2007 and Perimeter Networks Oooohh..we're talking Exchange here..not SQL.. It's as safe in the domain as in the DMZ if it's being protected by a properly configured ISA box... J From: isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Thor (Hammer of God) Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 8:26 PM To: isapros@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [isapros] Re: ISA, Exchange 2007 and Perimeter Networks Because it's safer that way, that's why... That's what an authenticated access DMZ perimeter is for- with a CAS server that presents logon services to any Internet user, I would (and, in fact, require) that the server be in a least-privileged authenticated access perimeter network that limits that servers communications to the minimum required for required functionality - and only to the hosts it needs to talk to. Let's say there is a front-end implementation issue or coding vulnerability: the CAS on the internal network would allow unfettered, full-stack access to the internal network. A CAS in a perimeter DMZ would mitigate potential exposure in the event of a 0day or configuration issue. "Safer on the internal network" is a complete misnomer when it comes to servers presenting services to an untrusted network. t On 1/10/07 3:04 PM, "Jim Harrison" <Jim@xxxxxxxxxxxx> spoketh to all: Why would you want to place a member of your internal domain in your DMZ, fer chrissakes?!? Hosting any domain member in the DMZ is a difficult proposition; especially where NAT is the order of the day. You can either use a network shotgun at your firewall or attempt to use your facvorite VPN tunnel across the firewall to the domain. Jim ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Jason Jones Sent: Wed 1/10/2007 2:35 PM To: isapros@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [isapros] Re: ISA, Exchange 2007 and Perimeter Networks From what I can gather, the new CAS role now uses RPC to communicate with the back-end (not sure of new name!) servers so I am guessing that this is an "RPC isn't safe across firewalls" type stance. Which I guess for a PIX, is a pretty true statement. Just think how much safer the world will be when firewalls can understand dynamic protocols like RPC...maybe one day firewalls will even be able to understand and filter based upon RPC interface...maybe one day... :-D ;-) Shame the Exchange team can't see how much ISA changes the traditional approach to DMZ thinking...kinda makes you think that both teams work for a different company :-( Jason Jones | Silversands Limited | Desk: +44 (0)1202 360489 | Mobile: +44 (0)7971 500312 | Fax: +44 (0)1202 360900 | Email: jason.jones@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:jason.jones@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Greg Mulholland Sent: 10 January 2007 22:07 To: isapros@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [isapros] Re: ISA, Exchange 2007 and Perimeter Networks I seriously hope that they have take different paths and these are not limitations on the software or it is going to mean a nice little redesign and break from custom.. Greg ----- Original Message ----- From: Jason Jones <mailto:Jason.Jones@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: isapros@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 8:25 AM Subject: [isapros] ISA, Exchange 2007 and Perimeter Networks Hi All, I heard today from an Exchange MVP colleague that members of the Exchange team (Scott Schnoll) are saying that they (Microsoft) do not support placing the new Exchange 2007 Client Access Server (like the old Exch2k3 FE role) role into a perimeter network. Has anyone else heard the same? This sounds very similar to Exchange admins of old when they didn't really understand modern application firewalls like ISA could do - RPC filter anyone??? http://groups.google.co.uk/group/microsoft.public.exchange.design/browse_thread/thread/4ecab9cb8e50015e/4db165c21599cf9b?lnk=st&q=cas+dmz+isa&rnum=2&hl=en#4db165c21599cf9b <http://groups.google.co.uk/group/microsoft.public.exchange.design/browse_thread/thread/4ecab9cb8e50015e/4db165c21599cf9b?lnk=st&q=cas+dmz+isa&rnum=2&hl=en#4db165c21599cf9b> I have just about managed to convince Exchange colleagues (and customers) of the value of placing Exchange FE servers in a separate security zone from BE servers, DC's etc and now I here this. Are the Exchange team confusing the old traditional DMZ's with what ISA can achieve with perimeter networks? From what I believe, it is good perimeter security practice to place servers which are Internet accessible into different security zones than servers that are purely internal. Therefore, the idea of placing Exchange 2003 FE servers in an ISA auth access perimeter network with Exchange 2003 BE servers on the internal network has always seemed like a good approach. It also follows a good least privilege model. Is this another example of the Exchange and ISA teams following different paths???? Please tell me that I am wrong and that I am not going to have to start putting all Exchange roles, irrespective of security risk, on the same network again!!!! Comments? Cheers JJ All mail to and from this domain is GFI-scanned. All mail to and from this domain is GFI-scanned.