Security Basics mailing list archives
RE: Deep Inspection Firewall / IPS
From: "Bryan S. Sampsel" <bsampsel () libertyactivist org>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 11:46:08 -0700 (MST)
Sincerely, Bryan S. Sampsel LibertyActivist.org An IPS is a good thing to have, and you can set up a Snort box for free to get an IDS in place to start with. With proof of concept, you can expand to some commercial flavor you may think is better. Beyond that, if you want to protect at the application layer (such as a webserver), get a firewall with proxy-application in the mix (Secure Computing Sidewinder is an excellent choice). Its benefits are simple: a hardened IP stack sits between you and the end device, protecting your system from directly talking to the end device, its application proxy can check for application specific attacks and defend against them more effectively than DPI could ever do. You can also ensure your webserver is up to date and as hardened as it can be, regardless of the firewall in front of it. Sloppy system security leads to breeches despite the best firewalls in front of it. Bryan Sampsel
-----Original Message----- From: listbounce () securityfocus com [mailto:listbounce () securityfocus com] On Behalf Of Tony Raboza Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 2:16 PM To: security-basics () securityfocus com Subject: Deep Inspection Firewall / IPS Hi, I'm trying to get my company to buy a firewall with deep-inspection capabilities or IPS. From my research what is really needed is a deep inspection firewall/IPS - because a stateful packet inspection will not do. For example for a web server - you close off all the ports except port 80 /443 (http/https). But threats/malware can come in through port 80 disguising itself as normal http traffic, so we need a firewall which would inspect this - hence the need for deep packet inspection/IPS. But what if we also do NAT? Can malware still come in through port 80? I've been reading this - "Red Hat 8 Compromise" - http://honeyblog.org/junkyard/reports/redhat-compromise.pdf , but my thought on this one is that if the honeypot RH8 was NATted could the attacker have opened up a shell which might either be port 22 (ssh) or 23 (telnet)? What if only port 80/443 was port-forwarded? Can the attacker open up a shell? Questions: 1. Am I correct in my statements above? 2. If I am correct - can you give me real-world examples of exploits that come in through port 80/port 443 which can compromise a Unix/Linux webserver as well as a Windows web server? Thanks, Tony
Current thread:
- Deep Inspection Firewall / IPS Tony Raboza (Oct 29)
- Re: Deep Inspection Firewall / IPS Adriel Desautels (Oct 29)
- RE: Deep Inspection Firewall / IPS Abimbola, Abiola (Oct 29)
- RE: Deep Inspection Firewall / IPS Serge Vondandamo (Oct 29)
- RE: Deep Inspection Firewall / IPS Bryan S. Sampsel (Oct 29)