I've told them it's insane, but they're echoing stuff that's in ISA UE documentation. It adds needless complexity and no additional security, which is what I've told them hundreds of times, but who am I to tell them anything? Thomas W Shinder, M.D. Site: www.isaserver.org <http://www.isaserver.org/> Blog: http://blogs.isaserver.org/shinder/ Book: http://tinyurl.com/3xqb7 <http://tinyurl.com/3xqb7> MVP -- Microsoft Firewalls (ISA) ________________________________ From: isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jason Jones Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2007 5:01 PM To: isapros@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [isapros] Re: ISA, Exchange 2007 and Perimeter Networks Maybe you can give Network Engines a good kicking about this recommendation in their documentation then! :-) 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 Thomas W Shinder Sent: 14 January 2007 22:33 To: isapros@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [isapros] Re: ISA, Exchange 2007 and Perimeter Networks No, I think it's absurd -- they're cow-towing to the Syphco rep trained port-opener "network guys". There is no additional security conferred IMHO. Thomas W Shinder, M.D. Site: www.isaserver.org <http://www.isaserver.org/> Blog: http://blogs.isaserver.org/shinder/ Book: http://tinyurl.com/3xqb7 <http://tinyurl.com/3xqb7> MVP -- Microsoft Firewalls (ISA) ________________________________ From: isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jason Jones Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2007 4:07 PM To: isapros@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [isapros] Re: ISA, Exchange 2007 and Perimeter Networks Jim/Tom, I noticed that quite a lot of the ISA firewall appliance vendor promote the "ISA in a new forest, with a one way trust to the existing forest" model. Do you have the same view on this? 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 Jim Harrison Sent: 14 January 2007 16:53 To: isapros@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [isapros] Re: ISA, Exchange 2007 and Perimeter Networks No; the Exch team (or certain author-wanna-bees, anyway). I've tech-reviewed three Exch-created docs last year and without exception, they all carried this verbal virus with them. It's an incredible fight to get this removed and I have to admit that I haven't been entirely successful. From: isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Thomas W Shinder Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2007 8:36 AM To: isapros@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [isapros] Re: ISA, Exchange 2007 and Perimeter Networks You mean the ISA UE is pushing the domain=bad crapola? How do you tell a secure EAS publishing story without it? Thomas W Shinder, M.D. Site: www.isaserver.org <http://www.isaserver.org/> Blog: http://blogs.isaserver.org/shinder/ Book: http://tinyurl.com/3xqb7 MVP -- Microsoft Firewalls (ISA) ________________________________ From: isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jim Harrison Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2007 9:48 PM To: isapros@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [isapros] Re: ISA, Exchange 2007 and Perimeter Networks They do ask; they just don't listen. I was asked to review a doc on EAS via ISA that's coming out soon and couldn't get them to drop the "ISA as domain member == bad" mantra... From: isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jason Jones Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2007 3:46 PM To: isapros@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [isapros] Re: ISA, Exchange 2007 and Perimeter Networks Can't believe they just make their own decision terminology/security architecture rather than asking ISA product team for advise on what they should be saying....maybe that is just me being incredibly naive though ;-) ________________________________ From: isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Thomas W Shinder Sent: 13 January 2007 17:32 To: isapros@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [isapros] Re: ISA, Exchange 2007 and Perimeter Networks However, one thing I DON'T want to get back to is the "single model" DMZ -- because the entire point of this conversation is that there is a heterogeniety of DMZs and that the problem with the Exchange team is that they didn't understand this in the first place. :) Thomas W Shinder, M.D. Site: www.isaserver.org <http://www.isaserver.org/> Blog: http://blogs.isaserver.org/shinder/ Book: http://tinyurl.com/3xqb7 MVP -- Microsoft Firewalls (ISA) ________________________________ From: isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Thomas W Shinder Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2007 11:23 AM To: isapros@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [isapros] Re: ISA, Exchange 2007 and Perimeter Networks It's interesting how the canaille misinterprets the term DMZ, like they do for most things :) Think about the Korean DMZ -- is that really a "free for all" place? Or one of the most monitored and secured areas in the world, where nothing happens without someone knowing about it almost immediately? That what you get when the Syphco reps teach a generation of "port openers".... Thomas W Shinder, M.D. Site: www.isaserver.org <http://www.isaserver.org/> Blog: http://blogs.isaserver.org/shinder/ Book: http://tinyurl.com/3xqb7 MVP -- Microsoft Firewalls (ISA) ________________________________ From: isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Thor (Hammer of God) Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 5:51 PM To: isapros@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [isapros] Re: ISA, Exchange 2007 and Perimeter Networks Interesting... Probably a good idea for us to actually articulate what we really mean when we say DMZ. I guess to some it means "free for all network" but for me, it should be the network where you have the most restrictive policies controlling each service so that it is obvious when malicious traffic hits the wire. Thoughts> t On 1/12/07 3:30 PM, "Steve Moffat" <steve@xxxxxxxxxx> spoketh to all: That's what I thought, now it's what I know.... From: isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jim Harrison Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 6:35 PM To: isapros@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [isapros] Re: ISA, Exchange 2007 and Perimeter Networks Aside from normal router & switch ACLs, ISA is the single line of defense. "..we don't need no stinking DMZs" From: isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:isapros-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Steve Moffat Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 12:12 PM To: isapros@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [isapros] Re: ISA, Exchange 2007 and Perimeter Networks Ahh...just had a thought. It's all labeling. Jason, and others (not Jason's fault), have been using the term DMZ. Historically, is the term DMZ not taken literally as being completely firewalled off from the trusted networks, and what Jason is talking about is trusted network segmentation. I betcha that's why the Exchange team don't support it...they think it's a typical run of the mill DMZ... Jim, isn't MS's Internal network segmented by usin ISA?? Including your mail servers? S All mail to and from this domain is GFI-scanned. All mail to and from this domain is GFI-scanned. All mail to and from this domain is GFI-scanned.