RE: TIS Gauntlet : WINS and Exchange

["Ferguson, Linwood" <ferguson () mag aramark com>]

I would recommend you not try running this throught the firewall per se,
but instead consider a tunneled connection of some sort between the two
sites.  Once you establish the tunnel, the WINS resolution and updates
can flow over it without any special preparation.  Without it, you'll
have quite a job to allow only the specific kind of traffic you wish
through.  Lots of MS stuff you don't want from the outside use the same
ports. 

FWIW we've had good luck with PPTP which is native in NT4.  Lots of
conversations way back when on this list about why this is not
(completely/very/any) safe, but there are other such products including
one from TIS that offer different degrees of safety and cost.


> -----Original Message-----
> From:  AC [SMTP:ac0 () io com]
> Sent:  Tuesday, March 31, 1998 8:45 PM
> To:    firewall-wizards () nfr net
> Subject:       TIS Gauntlet : WINS and Exchange
>
> Hey folks,
>
> So I am currently on a project that involves
> a number of m$ products; <sigh>
> "Know thy enemy" is what I always say 
> though.
>
> check this: the company has 2 WINS servers, the primary
> one is in their uptown location. Their secondary is
> at their downtown location, where I am.
> So they do WINS resolution _over the INternet_. 
> (no inter-office connectivity
> except through the net). Is WINS and port 137-139
> netbios services the same thing? How the fsck does WINS
> work anyway? More importantly, how will I pass
> it through the Gauntlet firewall (plug-gw?) ( is there not
> the fear that somebody can just use smbclient and
> a cracked password to access the drives?) Not only
> that, but they do the Exchange database replication
> also _over the internet_. needless to say, their
> setup is fubar. but I have to know how does the m$ sexchange
> db replication work anyway? (which ports or anything)
> more importantly, how do I pass it through gauntlet?
>
> I believe I might have to just tcpdump
> on the wire and figure out what's happening,
> cause RFC1001 and RFC1002 aint fun reading.
>
> Suggestions, flames, comments welcome.
> --Anindya