[THIN] Re: WHY
- From: "Berny Stapleton" <berny@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:10:25 +0100
It's a simple theory on that one, if the user wants to browse the internet
directly WITHOUT going through a proxy, then disconnect the session to
internal, don't bring up the tunnel.
It's on or off, on and the traffic slows down as it goes internal and then
gets routed through, or off and it goes straight out to the internet. Now a
lot of security people would actually say that they don't want the user to
connect to anywhere aside from the office from a corporate laptop. If they
want to go browsing dodgey sites or try to get free pr0n by installing
plug-ins they can do it from their own system and not a work one. In a lot
of respects I agree with this, but it doesn't bode well for good employee
relations between IT and the other depts.
Berny
2008/4/30 Andrew Wood <andrew.wood@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> Ah, now I can ... say you give your user a corporate laptop for working
> from home – you want to allow them to browse the internet, like they do in
> the office. What you **don't** want to do is allow that browsing to
> adversely impact on your end device and make that that device a gateway into
> your network – so **all** outbound traffic from the remote device comes
> through the VPN, onto the internal network and then out again through the
> corporate proxy and whatever rules and monitoring you have in place.
>
>
>
> I realise thats not as efficient as (say) allowing the user to browse
> directly from their own internet connection – but it from an audit/security
> point of view that configuration is easier to manage.
>
>
>
> *From:* thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On
> Behalf Of *Berny Stapleton
> *Sent:* 30 April 2008 15:44
>
> *To:* thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* [THIN] Re: WHY
>
>
>
> So why not put some other IP address space, such as if you are using 10.x
> for your internal use some 192.168 or vice versa on the connections for the
> CAG SSL VPN / IPSEC VPN connections and treat think of them as another
> interface, as opposed to being part of the internal network. My thought
> would be is that unless the traffic is coming down the TX pair from the
> switch that connects to the internal interface of your firewall, and it's
> addressed in those subnets, it's not internal traffic.
>
> RE: any filters/caching/auditing/scanning that you've got set up."
>
> Unless this is a limitation of the CAG why not just setup the scanning to
> do exactly this, but from the address space of the VPN / IP SEC sessions
> instead of the internal network?
>
> I can't see the logic in bringing the traffic through the external
> interface decrypting it, forcing it in across the internal interface (As
> that's not where the routing table is going to send it by default) to get
> your scanning and then routing it again onto the external interface.
>
> Berny
>
> 2008/4/30 Chad Schneider (IT) <Chad.M.Schneider@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
> "Otherwise, someone connecting on the external interface is being routed
> straight out onto the web – bypassing any filters/caching/auditing/scanning
> that you've got set up."
>
>
>
> This is exactly my point.
>
>
>
> If they connect and get an internal IP, with an internal default gateway,
> all traffic to the outside, should be routed through the inside.....
>
>
>
> "unless the destination address is the internal network, why SHOULD it
> send it via the internal interface? " This is also a good point. I know
> this worked fine when we had an Astaro firewall. The thought is that the
> Astaro is Linux, and Linux would note that it was an internal IP and simply
> send it out the internal interface.
>
>
>
>
>
> Chad Schneider
> Systems Engineer
> ThedaCare IT
> 920-735-7615
>
> >>> On 4/30/2008 at 8:33 AM, <andrew.wood@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I'd have thought that if the routing address on your internal interface
> was correct, that all traffic going through the CAG should head through the
> internal interface – and then be routed out through the normal channels for
> internal network traffic to the internet (which is unlikely to be the CAG)
>
>
>
> Otherwise, someone connecting on the external interface is being routed
> straight out onto the web – bypassing any filters/caching/auditing/scanning
> that you've got set up.
>
>
>
> This doesn't help Chad mind – other than agreeing with him that whats
> happening sounds wrong
>
>
>
> a.
>
>
>
> *From:* thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On
> Behalf Of *Berny Stapleton
> *Sent:* 30 April 2008 14:26
> *To:* thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* [THIN] Re: WHY
>
>
>
> OK, maybe this is just me and my limited experience with CAG...
>
> A VPN session which I presume is a connection from the internet (External)
> to the CAG, the CAG being a gateway device between external internet and
> internal network, when you bring up a VPN session, or in this case I presume
> IPSEC policy between the two devices (Client PC and the CAG) which would
> give you a IPSEC policy to the CAG and any traffic you send to it through
> the IPSEC policy would end up on it's local routing table. At which point it
> has to make a routing decision about where to send the traffic, it's an
> external address so therefore it would send it to the external interface and
> therefore external address.
>
> That seems logical to me. My question to you is, unless the destination
> address is the internal network, why SHOULD it send it via the internal
> interface? My only educated guess on this one is that you used part of your
> INTERNAL address space for the addresses you assigned to the CAG for it to
> hand out to clients, when as far as I can see, the clients should have been
> treated or thought of as DMZ interfaces / connections.
>
> This is just what I am thinking about having done firewall admin before.
>
> If I am wrong on this one, and completley off base, please let me know, my
> experiece with CAG is limited.
>
> Berny
>
> 2008/4/30 Chad Schneider (IT) <Chad.M.Schneider@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
> Does a VPN session to the CAG, route external bound internet traffic
> through the CAG external interface, rather than through the CAG Internal
> interface?
>
>
>
> I am watching the traffic, from our CAG internal IP range, when making a
> request to google.com, the traffic goes out the CAG INT0(External).
>
>
>
>
>
> Chad Schneider
> Systems Engineer
> ThedaCare IT
> 920-735-7615
>
>
>
>
>
Other related posts:
