[THIN] Re: Giving expernal parties access to your Citrix published applications

  • From: "Jeff Pitsch" <jepitsch@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 11:36:21 -0400

Your forgetting the access licenses as well.


Jeff Pitsch Microsoft MVP - Terminal Server Provision Networks VIP

Forums not enough?
Get support from the experts at your business
http://jeffpitschconsulting.com



On 9/6/06, Evan Mann <emann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I'd opt for CAG/WI, but not use AAC. This keeps things simple. Just as simple as doing CSG/WI (IMO).

Cost wise, If you need to buy a new box to throw in the DMZ to run CSG,
then that cost can go towards CAG.  You can also put the costs to secure and
maintain the DMZ box towards CAG, since I've found there to be zero cost to
maintain CAG (aside from the occasional software updates) after it was
implemented.

You're also buying into a product that will get new features, and gives
you extra functionality, should you think there is even the smallest
possibility of doing what it offers in the future.



 ------------------------------
 *From:* thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On
Behalf Of *Jeff Pitsch
*Sent:* Wednesday, September 06, 2006 9:19 AM

*To:* thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* [THIN] Re: Giving expernal parties access to your Citrix
published applications


1) Many companies use Windows in the DMZ and it can be locked down effectively. This is old thinking that isn't true anymore if you know what your doing.

2)  Citrix is not dropping CSG, they are simply not adding any new
features.  They have said they will continue to ship it as is and update it
for future OS's.  If all your looking for is ICA tunneling, this is still
the product.  As well if they were actually going to get rid of CSG it would
be minimally in the Longhorn timeframe which is minimally 1.5 - 2 years
away.

3)  WI/CSG works just fine.  VPN doesn't sound like what they want to
offer so it doesn't fall into this equation.

4)  This works when it's your people but not external vendors and
partners.  The amount of communication and consideration that would go into
this is staggering.  Every time they change something they have to tell
you.  considering that the changes made on their end would be from the PC
group, this is unlikely to happen and would cause an inordinate amount of
problems for both parties.  As well, since they are segmenting the external
users as well as they will have contorl of whether drive mappings, etc are
in effect, it's not something i would worry about.

5)  Again, we are talking about the PS environment and a segmented PS
environment at that.  They are trying to keep the external users away from
their main network not give them varying levels of access to it.

In the end, IMHO, the added license cost and complexity of the CAG/AAC
solution is simply not justified or needed at this point in time.


Jeff Pitsch Microsoft MVP - Terminal Server Provision Networks VIP

Forums not enough?
Get support from the experts at your business
http://jeffpitschconsulting.com


On 9/5/06, Steve Greenberg <steveg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I see your point but I still prefer to use CAG/AAC for these > situations with the following benefits: > > > > 1) CAG is a dedicated LINUX box, CSG is Windows! Who would want > IIS in the DMZ? > > 2) Forward going support, Citrix is dropping CSG soon > > 3) Ability to offer VPN, WI or portal style content with the same > solution > > 4) Ability to do endpoint security checking, I certainly would > want to enforce virus/worm protection on any machine gaining access to my > environment > > 5) Ability to present content with various levels of access > depending the type of device, type of user, whether they using a known > devices, virus protection, etc. i.e. if the end user is coming from the > subnet of the B to B partner then they can read/write a certain document, if > they are coming from somewhere else it is read-only, and countless other > if/then possibilities….. > > > > > > Can you tell I like CAG/ACC? J > > > > Steve Greenberg > > Thin Client Computing > > 34522 N. Scottsdale Rd D8453 > > Scottsdale, AZ 85262 > > (602) 432-8649 > > www.thinclient.net > > steveg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On > Behalf Of *Jeff Pitsch > *Sent:* Tuesday, September 05, 2006 3:37 PM > *To:* thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > *Subject:* [THIN] Re: Giving expernal parties access to your Citrix > published applications > > > > Put the external users in their own domain. I believe the external > connector would work for you although I'm not 100% on how that is licensed > in regards to partners and vendors. The external connector would cover you > from a CAL perspective. I also think a segmented fam would be the best way > to handle it. I would also use CSG/WI (separate installation because of > domain and branding (if you wanted different branding for external users)). > The PS license server could easily be shared if needed. this is exactly the > scenario that it was designed for. > > > I have to respectfully disagree with use CAG/AAC. It wouldn't get you > any real advantage over simply using WI/CSG. The granularity that AAC is > for is controlling the level of trust to your internal network in regards to > shares, websites, etc. It sounds more like you want to simply deliver > applications and not ahve those users mix with your employees. > > > > Jeff Pitsch > Microsoft MVP - Terminal Server > Provision Networks VIP > > Forums not enough? > Get support from the experts at your business > http://jeffpitschconsulting.com > > > > > > On 9/5/06, *Michael Pardee* < pardeemp.list@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > We have a MFXP Farm of approximately 4500 concurrent users all on > Windows2003 SP1 servers. We have always brought Vendors in to a secure area > via VPN to very specific servers. We now have a need to bring in close to > 500 concurrent users from a Vendor/Partner and I'm curious how others are > doing this. > > As with everything, the easiest way is the least secure, so just giving > them accounts in our AD and letting them hit our internal Farm via WI is > probably not the best way to go. I'm thinking we may actually want to bring > up an external facing PS4 Farm for the Vendors/Partners. When we do that we > need new ZDCs, license servers, etc. I guess we'd need an external > Microsoft license server and a bunch of TSCals. Maybe even a different WI > server to ensure seperation from the regular employee access portal. > > Just curious how others allow external parties access to your > applications. > > Thanks in advance. > > > -- > > Michael Pardee > www.blindsquirrel.org > > >


Other related posts: