[THIN] Re: Securing MFXP
- From: "Joe Shonk" <joe.shonk@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: <thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 15:03:15 -0700
What government regulation is that? I'm currently at a hospital and have
built WI/CSG for many other hospitals. And even then a private root can't
be considered second factor. You'd be surprised what people do. One guy put
his securid token on the web via a webcam. There is nothing that is
preventing doctors and nurses from copying the private root ca or posting it
to a website. Also, how do you revoke this "second factor" after the user's
employment has been terminated?
Joe
_____
From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Marc-Andre Lapierre
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 2:38 PM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: Securing MFXP
For sure this is the best. Actually, I use a combination of CSG + Secure
Computing Safe word for citrix or premiere access. I was just talking about
the situation of ILMS (original post) which include only the use of
Certificate.
But I've got some customer (hospital) that couldn't use a public certificate
since the government does not let them do that. I had to do it that way +
they required two factor authentication and the cheapest way possible. The
combination of a private root + username password met their needs. It's not
the best, I agree.
Another cool solution I use: RadIIS on the WI + a radius server that holds a
second user database. You got to authenticate to the radius first with a
username + a java passcode generator (kind of soft token + PIN) that change
on a daily basis and give you the WI login page then after you authenticate
to your ADS through the WI to get your Ticket and your icons.
_____
From: Steve Greenberg [mailto:steveg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 5:32 PM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: Securing MFXP
I tend to agree, but rather than target the CERT for improvement, I would
use a third party security add on such as Secure Computing and require
another factor of authentication to gain access.
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 Marc-Andre Lapierre
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 2:02 PM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: Securing MFXP
What if you use Entrust Authority?
Right now, the weakest aspect of a CSG setup is the username/password. If
you use a private Cert that you don't give, the hacker has to find the
Username/Password + hack/fake or whatever your private CA certificate, which
is not that easy even with MS technology. If you use the public one, yes
your encryption might be stronger, but anyone can get that CA certificate
and the only wall they have in front of your network is, in most cases, a
username/password to find. The hacker that has the knowledge/ability to
break in a Microsoft CA certificate is probably able to break in a
Thawte/Verisign one. While a username/password guess/try is easily feasible
to anyone. Maybe I'm wrong, but if I have to choose, I prefer having a
slightly week encryption (specially knowing that the content of an ICA
packet is almost useless) with an easy to create and a private MS CA Cert
than having a stronger encryption but easier to break in a Username Password
only!
_____
From: Bray, Donovan (ESC) [mailto:BrayD@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 4:29 PM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: Securing MFXP
From a security standpoint I don't think what you are suggesting is entirely
true. I guarantee you Thawte and Verisign run a much more secure CA, than
the rest of us can.
What you are suggesting is potentially more hoops for an attacker, but if
the hoops are easier to get around, there's no security advantage. Also as
stated before it increases your training costs, and ongoing TCO for
additional helpdesk calls, that you could have reduced by paying $300/yr to
a reputable publicly available CA. I wouldn't consider anybody's self setup
CA to be more secure than a reputable public CA, unless you are in the
business of setting up Certificate Authorities and you had a considerable
amount of money to invest in the PKI infrastructure. Setting up a secure CA
and PKI infrastructure is well beyond running just running Microsoft's CA
software on a single box. It's about the business practices of the CA as
much as it is about the technology.
_____
From: Marc-Andre Lapierre [mailto:malapierre@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 1:00 PM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: Securing MFXP
But using a private cert is more secure than using a public one since the
ICA has to trust the Root certificate of the CSG box. It's a king of two
factor authentication since you need to give the private certificate to your
users.
_____
From: Joe Shonk [mailto:joe.shonk@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 1:26 AM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: Securing MFXP
I would look at using CSG; it's more secure and free with your SubAdv. It's
much simpler to setup and maintain than SSL Relay, even with 2 servers. I
would also look into using a Public cert. They can be had for only $50
dollars and saves a bunch of time and hassle trying to teach end users how
to install the root cert.
Joe
_____
From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of ILMS (Air)
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 9:24 PM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Securing MFXP
Hii friends!
We have 2 MFXP FR3/W2k3 servers, users logging in using WI over LAN/WAN.
Would like to implement SSL.
What I have in mind is:
1. Setup CA on one MF server. Create root cert.
Issue Server cert to both MF servers (IIS servers) and install through IIS.
2. Direct WI to use HTTPS (or Citrix SSL??) on 443, also set MF server name
same a certificate name.
3. Setup citrix ssl relay on both MF servers (required??).
4. Install root cert on clients.
5. Open only 443 port.
6. Direct users to use https://server
waiting for your feedback!!
thnx in advance!
Other related posts:
