Re: Using SBS 2003 for all remote access.
anonymous_at_discussions.microsoft.com
Date: 06/29/04
- Next message: Jules: "Win98 Client cannot access http://companyweb with Error 400: Bad Request"
- Previous message: anonymous_at_discussions.microsoft.com: "Re: SBS 2003 Server Management"
- In reply to: David Jones [MSFT]: "Re: Using SBS 2003 for all remote access."
- Next in thread: David Jones [MSFT]: "Re: Using SBS 2003 for all remote access."
- Reply: David Jones [MSFT]: "Re: Using SBS 2003 for all remote access."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 15:40:22 -0700
Makes perfect sense, Yes of course only the ports needed
for the services we need access to on the web side would
be open and I assume the built in firewall will handle
that. BTW I plan on using Terminal Services for any admin
on the server itself as it will be in a cabinet in a co-
lo facility. Will I have to make sure this is allowed in
the firewall config or will the wizard handle this for me
when I setup remote access?
Thanks David.
Bill
>-----Original Message-----
>> So above the built in firewall I should have another
>> piece of hardware between the SBS machine and the
>> internet? If I am allowing access to any ports open on
>> the web side of the SBS machine via the firewall anyway
>> how does it help?
>>
>> Bill
>
>If the SBS machine has 2 NICs, one connected to your
internal switch that
>gets blackholed, or to create an internal network, SBS
itself can configure
>a firewall, and you can then only allow the ports you
need to be opened.
>If the SBS machine has 1 NIC, SBS itself cannot
configure the built-in
>firewall, and you would definately need another piece of
hardware.
>You would not want to allow all ports from the Internet
to the SBS machine,
>that's the security risk I'm talking about. You would
only want the ports
>needed for what your users need, such as for VPN, the
web server, Outlook
>over the Internet, etc.
>
>Adding another hardware firewall is an additional layer
of defense, but is
>not required if you let SBS configure the built-in
firewall.
>
>Does that make sense?
>
>David Jones
>SBS Product Team
>--
>This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and
confers no rights.
>
>
><anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>news:233ba01c45e25$4f592660$a501280a@phx.gbl...
>>
>>
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >> I do not understand why have the second NIC connect
to
>> a
>> >> hub? Would I be configuring that NIC to be
the "local
>> >> network" and therefore all domain controller type
>> >> functions will use that NIC? The server already has
two
>> >> NICs and I have a managed switch in the cabinet. So
I
>> can
>> >> just connect that second NIC to a port in the switch
>> and
>> >> just block all outside access to that port. All of
the
>> >> other machines in the cabinet are Server 2003 Web
>> edition
>> >> to be used for serving out our networked
applications
>> and
>> >> web content we offer. They all have dual NICs so I
>> >> suppose I could configure the second NICs on all
>> machines
>> >> to be on an internal network and use some of the
>> >> functionality of the SBS machine for something.
What I
>> >> don't know at this time, possibly for setting up
>> network
>> >> shares of the drives for accesing them via the VPN
on
>> the
>> >> SBS machine.
>> >
>> >
>> >Blocking all outside access to that port in the switch
>> would work as well.
>> >Yes, basically, it would be to configure an "internal
>> network", so the
>> >domain controller functionality listens on that NIC,
and
>> SBS configures its
>> >own firewall to block access from external/Internet
>> sources to those ports.
>> >Configuring the second NICs on all the other machines
is
>> an option too, if
>> >you wanted any of the functionality gained from that.
>> Up to you really.
>> >The key thing with SBS is to just make sure there's an
>> active firewall up
>> >between it and the main Internet.
>> >
>> >David Jones
>> >SBS Product Team
>> >
>> >--
>> >This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties,
and
>> confers no rights.
>> >
>> >
>> ><anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> >news:231e501c45e13$e5786a00$a401280a@phx.gbl...
>> >>
>> >> >-----Original Message-----
>> >> >"Bill" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote
in
>> >> message
>> >> >news:2309d01c45e03$cd44fda0$a401280a@phx.gbl...
>> >> >> Are there any issues with using SBS 2003 Standard
>> for
>> >> >> remote access ONLY. All of our employees work
>> remotely
>> >> >> with broadband connections and right now we use a
>> POP
>> >> >> server for mail, a web based calander with way to
>> many
>> >> >> logins for scheduling, FTP for doocument transfer
>> and
>> >> AIM
>> >> >> for instant messaging. I would like to replace
all
>> of
>> >> >> those methods with SBS. I plan on setting up an
SBS
>> >> >> server in a co-location facility and have
everyone
>> >> access
>> >> >> it via VPN. Are there any issues with this?
>> >> >
>> >> >Hi Bill,
>> >> >
>> >> >In addition to what others have said, it is
extremely
>> >> important in this
>> >> >scenario for you to have a properly configured and
>> >> maintained firewall
>> >> >between the server and the Internet. Because SBS
must
>> >> be a domain
>> >> >controller, and the baggage that comes with that,
it
>> >> must have certain ports
>> >> >listening. Without a firewall, you risk exposing a
>> >> domain controller
>> >> >directly to the Internet, which is a major security
>> risk.
>> >> >This (the firewall) can be accomplished with a
>> hardware
>> >> device, or by using
>> >> >2 NICs in the server and putting the unused NIC on
a
>> >> dummy hub. There are
>> >> >additional ways to configure a firewall on the
server
>> >> while using only 1
>> >> >NIC, but SBS will not configure it as such.
>> >> >
>> >> >David Jones
>> >> >SBS Product Team
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Thanks for all the help guys!
>> >>
>> >> Bill
>> >
>> >
>> >.
>> >
>
>
>.
>
- Next message: Jules: "Win98 Client cannot access http://companyweb with Error 400: Bad Request"
- Previous message: anonymous_at_discussions.microsoft.com: "Re: SBS 2003 Server Management"
- In reply to: David Jones [MSFT]: "Re: Using SBS 2003 for all remote access."
- Next in thread: David Jones [MSFT]: "Re: Using SBS 2003 for all remote access."
- Reply: David Jones [MSFT]: "Re: Using SBS 2003 for all remote access."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|