RE: RPC over HTTP security

[Shawn Wall <sjwall () shaw ca>]

Comments inline

-----Original Message-----
From: James McGee [mailto:james () infosec co im] 
Sent: Friday, January 28, 2005 12:41 PM
To: Shawn Wall; Eric McCarty; Kevin Doheny; sf_mail_sbm () yahoo com;
security-basics () securityfocus com
Subject: RE: RPC over HTTP security

Yes, probably trillions of dollars are transacted via SSL.  But, SSL, does
not offer the server much security, if anything it reduces it for the server
end.

> > I agree that SSL does squat for sever security, never said it did.

SSL encrypts traffic between client/server or server/server.  The trouble
is, you can't then see what's in the traffic, with your average IDS, unless
you offload the encryption to an SSL terminator.

> > This requires a more advanced configuration, as you eluded to.

SSL was setup to encrypt sensitive data from the client, and to offer
re-assurance to the end-user (read client). 

> > Stating the obvious.

I had a project manager compare SSL to PKI, which is not a comparison.
SSL costs <$100 PKI probably >$10000.  Don't that tell you something.

> > This tells me that PKI is more expensive to deploy that SSL. Security is
often a trade off against cost. For email, PKI may be too expensive for most
SMB.

In a banking type application, the data that is protected is primarily the
user data, so it increases user confidence.  But it don't do much for the
bank's servers......

> > Again, we all know the sever is not protected.

Cheers


James

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Shawn Wall [mailto:sjwall () shaw ca]
Sent: 28 January 2005 17:54
To: 'Eric McCarty'; 'Kevin Doheny'; sf_mail_sbm () yahoo com;
security-basics () securityfocus com
Subject: RE: RPC over HTTP security

I'd have to agree with Eric on this one. SSL is a proven encryption method.
Billions of dollars are transefer via SSL encypted sites every year. If was
as trivial to 'hack' as you suggest, Kevin, I don't think it would be in
use. Perhaps you could do as Eric suggested and provide some factual proof.

shawn 

-----Original Message-----
From: Eric McCarty [mailto:eric () piteduncan com]
Sent: Friday, January 28, 2005 10:35 AM
To: Kevin Doheny; Shawn Wall; sf_mail_sbm () yahoo com;
security-basics () securityfocus com
Subject: RE: RPC over HTTP security

Your joking right.

"SSL in and of itself provides very little security"

That's why most of the internet uses it right?. 

Your gonna have to back up statements like yours with some serious factual
backing otherwise your comments will be discarded as B.S coming form someone
who doesn't know what they are talking about.

E. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Doheny [mailto:kdoheny () CNP net]
Sent: Friday, January 28, 2005 5:06 AM
To: Shawn Wall; sf_mail_sbm () yahoo com; security-basics () securityfocus com
Subject: RE: RPC over HTTP security

SSL in and of itself provides very little security... Way to easy to hack.
Look into a Neoteris (now Juniper) SSL VPN/Proxy.  This way evil hack3r can
not ride the SSL stream into your network and past any IDS or IPS systems. 

Kevin 

-----Original Message-----
From: Shawn Wall [mailto:sjwall () shaw ca]
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2005 11:04 PM
To: sf_mail_sbm () yahoo com; security-basics () securityfocus com
Subject: RE: RPC over HTTP security

Are you using Exchange? Why not use OWA and secure it with SSL?

shawn 

-----Original Message-----
From: sf_mail_sbm () yahoo com [mailto:sf_mail_sbm () yahoo com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2005 6:03 AM
To: security-basics () securityfocus com
Subject: RPC over HTTP security



Hi List,
We are thinking about deploying RPC over HTTP to access email from the
Internet

Wanted to get some information on the technology and the security
implications of same

Not much info from Microsoft's site

any help would be greatly apreciated

Thanks,
Ronish