Re: Front-End server question
From: Clayton Sutton (none_at_none.com)
Date: 03/04/05
- Next message: Michael Mendoza: "Re: Front-End server question"
- Previous message: Rich Matheisen [MVP]: "Re: Front-End server question"
- In reply to: Al Mulnick: "Re: Front-End server question"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 15:09:10 -0600
Thanks Al for the input, that helped a lot!
Clayton
"Al Mulnick" <amulnick_No_SPAM@ncDOTrr.com> wrote in message
news:uJtP7gAIFHA.1528@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> It's not a substitute. It's a different concept altogether aimed at
> solving a different problem.
>
> IPSec solves the problem of n'er-do-wells lurking in your DMZ sniffing the
> line for information because it allows you to protect the transmission
> with encryption.
>
> In this scenario, IPSec is used to secure the transmission of the data
> between the servers (from the DMZ server to the domain servers.)
>
> IPSec does nothing for the application layer of the solution. So you're
> left with the risk of placing a domain member (if Exchange, it also has
> elevated rights by virtue of the computer group membership) in a
> semi-trusted network area. Does that comply with your security policies?
> It's not a Microsoft best practice but it might fit with your security
> policies.
>
> By contrast ISA is an application-layer firewall (layer-7 firewall device
> in other words) that is used to firewall intent (application useage) vs.
> packet destination (like a router, right?). It happens to understand
> Microsoft products better than most other layer-7 firewall devices. That
> makes sense as well right?
>
> Typically, you'd want to deploy ISA <insert your solution here if not ISA>
> in the DMZ to project the application. That machine would be a hardened,
> stand-alone solution. It would also terminate your external SSL
> connections (note that SSL is also used to protect transmission of data
> between machines ONLY). Ideally, you'd want a device that could bridge
> SSL because you'd want to inspect the packet before it reaches its
> destination and make a permit/deny decision based on the intent prior to
> it hitting the intended application. From the DMZ, you'd want a way to
> protect the conversation of the <ISA> server to the target application
> server. This is often done with SSL (bridging) where the ISA server
> creates a new SSL session with the target from its internally facing
> interface, or with IPSec encryption to the target. In this case, IPSec
> and SSL would be interchangeable for their intended function and it would
> be a matter of choice/policy which you chose.
>
> Does that help you to understand where IPSec can fit in all of this?
>
> Note that *some* would argue that if you had an application layer
> firewall, you wouldn't really need a DMZ. A DMZ would be an archaic
> throwback since it's job is to allow you to cutoff conversation from the
> untrusted to the trusted (soft squishy core). I still see some value in a
> DMZ myself, but just throwing that out there.
>
> Al
>
>
> "Clayton Sutton" <none@none.com> wrote in message
> news:uaIXeGAIFHA.576@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>> How is this a substitute for ISA? Does it work better then ISA? Like I
>> said, I don't really want to use ISA.
>>
>>
>> Clayton
>>
>>
>>
>> "Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" <rod@die.spam.die.nw-america.com> wrote in
>> message news:e00pvr3HFHA.2476@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>>> You mean like this one
>>> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;821839? You
>>> will need Exchange 2003, 2000 did not support IPsec in this matter. I
>>> can tell you from personal experience that it works nicely :)
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Rod
>>>
>>> MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
>>> http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering
>>> http://msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
>>>
>>> "Clayton Sutton" <none@none.com> wrote in message
>>> news:uYoVLi3HFHA.2656@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>>>> Do tell more Rod. I like that idea. Got any white papers or links
>>>> that talk about it? I really don't like to have to use ISA.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Clayton
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]" <rod@die.spam.die.nw-america.com> wrote in
>>>> message news:O12bxb1HFHA.2700@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>>>>> If you are not a fan of ISA. Put the FE's in the DMZ and use IPSec to
>>>>> the backend. That works nicely too.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>
>>>>> Rod
>>>>>
>>>>> MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
>>>>> http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering
>>>>> http://msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
>>>>>
>>>>> "Russ Kaufmann" <russ@exchangemct.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:e6W%23cU1HFHA.3928@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>>>>>> "Ed Woodrick" <ewoodrick@ed-nospam-com.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:OLcs6Y0HFHA.2936@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>> There is no specific need for different FE servers for the different
>>>>>>> domains. One FE server can handle the requirements of both.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Don't put your FE servers in the DMZ. Put them on the internal
>>>>>>> network. If you need enhanced security, user a ISA server to reverse
>>>>>>> proxy the connection from the Internet.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree with Ed here. Putting FEs in the DMZ can be really difficult
>>>>>> to configure properly, and it just doesn't make sense to me when you
>>>>>> can publish them back into the LAN.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
- Next message: Michael Mendoza: "Re: Front-End server question"
- Previous message: Rich Matheisen [MVP]: "Re: Front-End server question"
- In reply to: Al Mulnick: "Re: Front-End server question"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
