Re: Blocking by MAC Address -
- From: "Miha Pihler [MVP]" <mihap-news@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 19:11:25 +0100
Again an attacker could still bypass 802.1x with this configuration.
Switch will only see one MAC. What is stopping an attacker to assign himself
same MAC as a valid computer? There are few other ways to fool switch into
allowing more then one MAC per port (even if configured otherwise).
This is very well described here under: "Why 802.1X on wired networks is
insufficient"
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/community/columns/secmgmt/sm0805.mspx
--
Mike
Microsoft MVP - Windows Security
"Antonio Cardoso" <AntonioCardoso@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message news:7C7362AC-1264-4782-961B-D602C1B85F50@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> not quite,
>
> the ideia is to change dynamicaly the VLAN of the port.
>
> VLAN A-> Connection VLAN
> VLAN B-> Validation VLAN
> VLAN C-> Production VLAN
>
> user allways connect to VLAN A
> user must go to server from VLAN B to validate the machine is OK
> user pass machine OK, then go to VLAN C
>
> allways check if there is a 2 MAC in one port, if so, port-down ... :-)
> this means no hubs in the enviroment.
>
> regards
>
> "Miha Pihler [MVP]" wrote:
>
>> As an attacker I can still bypass 802.1x on the switch.
>>
>> --
>> Mike
>> Microsoft MVP - Windows Security
>>
>> "Antonio Cardoso" <AntonioCardoso@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
>> message news:8A2BC001-F1B7-4E67-8726-1ABAA3457E72@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > You can do this by validating the switches ... if you have cisco you
>> > can
>> > send
>> > a trap each time a mac is added to a port and then validate that the
>> > mac
>> > is
>> > authorized ....
>> >
>> > regards
>> >
>> > "Miha Pihler [MVP]" wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> You don't have to use encryption. You can set up ESP-Null. In this
>> >> case
>> >> packets only get authenticated. This will still add up a bit to the
>> >> processor since it has to check every packet but this will in general
>> >> be
>> >> few
>> >> percents (3-5). Most of server's CPU is more or less below 10% so
>> >> adding
>> >> 3-5% should not be a problem.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Mike
>> >> Microsoft MVP - Windows Security
>> >>
>> >> "FabrizioV" <FabrizioV@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> >> news:7037C317-BE2F-4ECC-9CB1-3C42882E71BB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >> > Good morning Mike.
>> >> > The article is really interesting and IPSEC is an option to
>> >> > consider.
>> >> > An issue (IMHO) is the overhead you'll have on the clients and (most
>> >> > important) on the servers, when you encrypt all the traffic on your
>> >> > network.
>> >> > As you can see in this article :
>> >> > http://www.microsoft.com/technet/community/chats/trans/network/net0610.mspx
>> >> >
>> >> > "CPU on servers can be a problem but it can be mitigated by using
>> >> > IPSEC
>> >> > offload card from vendors like 3COM and Intel."
>> >> >
>> >> > So, if you already have or you are going to buy SSL/IPSEC dedicated
>> >> > cards
>> >> > for your data center IPSEC is a good choice.
>> >> > Else, if you have Windows 2003 and 802.1x enabled network switches,
>> >> > dot1x
>> >> > should be your choice.
>> >> >
>> >> > Fabrizio Volpe
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > "Miha Pihler [MVP]" wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Hi,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Mitigating the Threats of Rogue Machines-802.1X or IPsec?
>> >> >> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/community/columns/secmgmt/sm0805.mspx
>> >> >>
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> Mike
>> >> >> Microsoft MVP - Windows Security
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>>
>>
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Blocking by MAC Address -
- From: M. Eteum
- Re: Blocking by MAC Address -
- References:
- Blocking by MAC Address -
- From: aman11
- Re: Blocking by MAC Address -
- From: Miha Pihler [MVP]
- Re: Blocking by MAC Address -
- From: Miha Pihler [MVP]
- Re: Blocking by MAC Address -
- From: Miha Pihler [MVP]
- Re: Blocking by MAC Address -
- From: Miha Pihler [MVP]
- Re: Blocking by MAC Address -
- From: Antonio Cardoso
- Blocking by MAC Address -
- Prev by Date: DHCP and dynamic DNS registration question
- Next by Date: Re: VPN Authentication & Mapping Issue
- Previous by thread: Re: Blocking by MAC Address -
- Next by thread: Re: Blocking by MAC Address -
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|