[THIN] Re: speaking of security nazis

  • From: Magnus Hjorleifsson <magnus@xxxxxxxx>
  • To: "thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 07:23:09 -0400

Good point

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 26, 2009, at 4:49, "Andrew Wood" <andrew.wood@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Although if you’re going to use client side certs you need to be sur e that the client side component hasn’t been compromised



From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Magnus Hjorleifsson
Sent: 26 August 2009 00:17
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: speaking of security nazis



You can always use a client certificate as the second factor auth. And if they want to see Inside the tunnel you can give them the public and privat keys and have them run a packet trce to see what is going on

Sent from my iPhone


On Aug 25, 2009, at 14:13, "Wilson, Christopher" <CMWilson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > wrote:

Yup, that’s exactly what they are concerned about. Can’t see inside the tunnel.



I’m looking into the 2 factor options. I did see SMS Passcode, but SMS is not a standard feature on company cell phones for, you guesse d it, security reasons.



This is all helpful discussion. I’m still optimistic that problem c an be resolved with negotiation.



From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Berny Stapleton
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 11:23 AM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: speaking of security nazis



CSG / CAG is SSL, they can't see in it with a packet sniffer, it is a tunneling protocol, so they are worried about what else might get tunneled over it.

If they are that worried about it, give it to them for them to manage. That will allay a lot of their fears.

For the price of AppSense, you might be able to do two factor auth, which apparently is one of their primary concerns. Also, have you looked at something like SMS passcode or something like that as a cheaper two factor auth?

Berny

2009/8/25 Greg Reese <gareese@xxxxxxxxx>

and Nazi mutants could over run the walls and raze the whole place to the ground.

If they are happy with VPN, they should be happy with a CSG/CAG. Happier, since with a CSG/CAG, the client device is not an active node on the network like it is with a VPN.

You can do a double hop DMZ with this if that will help them sleep better at night.



On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Wilson, Christopher <CMWilson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > wrote:

It seems to be more about their perimeter security philosophy than anything. Multi-hop DMZ, with three rings to get through before you are internal. They don’t like that it hops right by their perimeter rings. They also don’t like that it runs on Windows, so maybe the CAG would appease that.



I’m not sure the kind of attack, but the argument goes something lik e this. If we provide remote access to this Citrix server, someone could potentially hack it and get administrative access, and then wh at? It seems like an anti-windows bias coming from a unix oriented team. In this argument, vague as it is, if the server is the vulner ability I thought I would attack it at the server level. (Obviously we already patch and run AV). So I brought in AppSense. I thought they would dig the lock down of processes on the server, and securi ty policies that filter on client location. They weren’t impressed. They want something else that sits in the DMZ as a barrier.



This team has apparently been pretty dogmatic about their policies, but I am hoping to find someone who will reason with me J. I appreciate you guys helping me make my case.



From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Robert K Coffman Jr. -Info From Data Corp.
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 10:04 AM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: speaking of security nazis



>The security team believes Citrix Secure Gateway with single factor authentication doesn’t provide enough protection from external atta ck


What kind of attack are they trying to prevent?



Both CSG and CAG use SSL... With the CAG you could limit the exposure of WI to the internet. I don't know CAG that well (yet), but other than that I don't know that it is more secure than CSG.



- Bob Coffman




Other related posts: