Sigh...inline comments
>From: "Allen May" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "Sean Young" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: Performance Comparision between Linux OS Firewall and Cisco
>PIX 525
>Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 14:55:57 -0600
>
>Sigh...inline comments:
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Sean Young" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Monday, March 26, 2001 2:42 PM
>Subject: Re: Performance Comparision between Linux OS Firewall and Cisco
>PIX
>525
>
>
> > Allen,
> > If SSH service is not open on the outside interface, how do you expect
> > to troubleshoot the problem when there is problem with the Firewall?
>VPN, dial-up modem, terminal server, ACLs, etc. If they find your password
>or someone knows it & get in, does IDS tell you?
Dial-up modem. Istn't there a war-dialer that can hack your system.
Another thing, isn't the VPN also has a public interface as well? what
about if your VPN has been compromised? Ever thought about that?
>
> > Tell me this, how can you troubleshoot a PIX remotely when there is
> > problem? My employer is certainly not going to fly me out-of-state to
>fix
>a
> > minor problem.
>See above answer.
>
> >Furthermore, can you absolutely guarantee me, in writing,
> > that the Cisco PIX
> > can never be compromised?
>No guarantee but it's claimed to have never been compromised unless the
>attacker had inside access (physical, vpn, etc) and knew the password and
>the user was careless enough to not implement ACL. On the other hand, read
>up on security on Linux for yourself. Redhat was the #1 hacked operating
>system (even surpassed Windows last I read).
Ever heard of Linux Router Project. What make you think that I am running
RedHat? Ever heard of NetBSD? It is even more secure than
PIX
>
> >Another thing, what makes you think that I am
> > also running other services besides Firewall features on Linux. If you
> > read my email carefully, you also notice that I only SSH and netfilter
> > (aka iptables) on the Firewall
>I read that part. Thats why I said root or sudo access allows a user to
>install other services. A Cisco IOS does not. It's easy to add a new
>service if you have access to do it. You can even install via ftp.
>
Now how do you plan getting my root password?
> >Your reason is based purely on FUD
> > (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt).
>It's based on 12 years experience and working as security administrator at
>an ISP where we've had many DSL users complain about their Linux boxes
>being
>hacked. Some find out they've been hacked after someone on the internet
>had
>reports of porn sites running on their compromised system. Users who
>purchased a PIX and allowed us to manage it have not been hacked even one
>time so far.
That is because they don't know what they are doing. How do you know
that Cisco PIX doesn't have any security holes. Did you read about Cisco
IOS devices having security regarding ISN security hole in it? What
make you think that PIX doesn't have this problem? Based on what the
vendors tell you? I would take their word with a grain of salt.
>
>I ain't skeered ;) I was trying to let you know the vulnerabilities you
>might have and allow you to take precautions. If you're going to be that
>way about it, you can learn on your own the hard way when you have to fly
>out there to fix a compromised system or failed hard drive. From your
>reply
>you either didn't read my reply carefully or didn't even understand it.
>
Every systems has it good and bad. It is up to us to decide. If I am
educated about Linux and its capabilities and limitation, I think the
system can be a very effective Firewall.
Just my 2 cents.
Sean
> >
> > Sean
> >
> >
> > >From: "Allen May" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >To: "Sean Young" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >Subject: Re: Performance Comparision between Linux OS Firewall and
>Cisco
> > >PIX 525
> > >Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 14:29:34 -0600
> > >
> > >Is the outside interface still open to SSH connections? If so & it's
> > >compromised, Linux is a full blown operating system that, when
>compromised,
> > >can have ANY program designed for Linux installed. Can you imagine
> > >something like a packet analyzer grabbing all your passwords and
>sending
> > >them out over the net to someone else? Ewww. That's my #1 reason for
> > >going
> > >with something like a PIX. Just make sure you're IDS is set to notify
>even
> > >in the event of a SUCCESSFUL connection. I've seen people who set it
>up
> > >for
> > >unsuccessful attempts only.
> > >
> > >I hope that guy wasn't fired BECAUSE he recommended the Cisco solution.
> > >That's totally a matter of point of view on that decision & his wasn't
> > >wrong..neither was the Linux choice. Some situations call for one
>while
> > >others call for the other.
> > >
> > >Oh and keep a copy of the correctly configured drive with all settings
>on
> > >hand. A hard drive is much more prone to failure than RAM/ROM just due
>to
> > >the moving parts involved.
> > >
> > >Allen
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: "Sean Young" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> > ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2001 3:05 PM
> > >Subject: Re: Performance Comparision between Linux OS Firewall and
>Cisco
> > >PIX
> > >525
> > >
> > >
> > > > Ken,
> > > > Thank you very much for the advice. This past Friday, my company
>has
> > > > decided to use Linux as our company Firewall. Furthermore, we've
> > >decided
> > > > that this Firewall will be running kernel 2.4.2 with only two
>services
> > > > running on it, SSH and netfilter (aka iptables). I've tested kernel
> > > > 2.4.2 in the lab and notice it performs better than kernel 2.2.x.
>I've
> > >also
> > > > performed various intrusion detection tests on the box using
> > > > Cisco NetSonar, Cybercop, ISS, Axent Netrecon but is unable to break
> > > > it. The linux box is rock-solid. I am also running portsentry
>(IDS)
> > > > on the Firewall itself.
> > > >
> > > > Also, we decide to running our squid proxy server on another linux
>box
> > > > to provide transparent caching for our internal users. As far as
>VPN
>is
> > > > concerns, we are going to implement FreeS/WAN on another box. I
>think
> > > > in the long run, it is going to save the company a lot of money. We
> > > > end up not buying the PIX and web-caching engine from Cisco. Oh,
>the
> > > > networking guy in our group who recommends Cisco PIX and Cisco web-
> > > > caching engine as a solution, he has been fired. Go figure.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Sean
> > > > P.S. Priscilla, why not implementing TRANSPARENT caching by using
>squid
> > > > to speed up internet connection for your users? Squid is free and
>very
> > > > secure and easy to use.
> > > >
> > > > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Stuart Brockwell"
> > ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > >Subject: Re: Performance Comparision between Linux OS Firewall and
> > >Cisco
> > > > >PIX 525
> > > > >Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 20:02:26 -0800
> > > > >
> > > > >Sean,
> > > > >
> > > > >Comments imbedded:
> > > > >
> > > > >On 23 Mar 2001, at 16:12, Stuart Brockwell wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Sean,
> > > > > > I am a Linux head my self, and one of our firewalls is in
>fact
> > > > > > running
> > > > > > on a Linux box. The only problem with this type of firewall is
>that
> > > > > > you inherit all of the known bugs that the software has. Given
>that
> > > > > > the source code to Linux is widely available, you have a lot of
>very
> > > > > > talented people out there who know these holes and are able to
> > >exploit
> > > > > > them very easily.
> > > > >
> > > > >It also means that there are a lot of talented people who are
>looking
> > > > >at the code to make sure that any holes are patched. In fact, when
> > > > >new exploits are found, Linux is usually the fastest platform to
>have
> > > > >a patch available. Compare this to having to wait weeks for vendor
> > > > >patches or having to prove to a vendor that a problem exists.
> > > > >
> > > > >Also, a service can only be exploited if it is running. A properly
> > > > >configured firewall doesn't run unecessary services, this makes it
> > > > >very difficult to exploit. Essentially, it would come down to
>trying
> > >to
> > > > >DoS it or running a password guessing program against it to get
> > > > >remote access.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > If you
> > > > > > maintain your own Linux firewall, you will need to continuously
>look
> > > > > > for the latest bug fixes to install on your Linux box to address
>the
> > > > > > latest round of holes that have been released.
> > > > >
> > > > >If the Linux firewall is properly setup, the only services running
>on
> > >it
> > > > >are ipchains and SSH. This means that you have to be aware of 2
> > > > >services. While there could always be a local exploit, if only
> > > > >trusted admins have access, the trouble with keeping up patches
> > > > >is minimal. It is certainly no more trouble than keeping up with
> > > > >bugs on a vendor platform.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cisco and companies such as Watch Guard closely guard their
>source
> > > > > > code, often you can elect to take on a maintenance contract with
>the
> > > > > > firewall where you recieve all the latest fixes for a 12 month
> > >period
> > > > > > (this is what we did). As this is their bread and butter, they
> > >spend
> > > > > > a lot of time looking for holes and fixes to known bugs.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >While true, this doesn't mean that their code will have fewer bugs
> > > > >or that the bugs will be patched quicker. There is a very large
> > > > >support community for Linux that is very technical. Most bugs are
> > > > >patched in a matter of days, sometimes hours.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > the main plus for each of
> > > > > > the commercial packages is that there is large support base,
>where
> > >as
> > > > > > skilled Linux admin staff who can lock down a firewall are very
>few
> > > > > > and far between.
> > > > >
> > > > >This is simply not true. There is a very large community of Linux
> > > > >developers and admins, and most of them are very knowledgable.
> > > > >There are good mailing lists and _plenty_ of good Linux
> > > > >security/firewall books, articles, web sites, etc. available.
> > > > >
> > > > >Locking down a Linux box is not rocket science. That is FUD that
> > > > >is propagated by vendors who want to sell product. It's not hard
>to
> > > > >configure a Linux box to be secure, the difficulty comes in running
> > > > >lots of services and providing access to users. If you have a box
> > > > >that runs web, ftp, smtp, nfs, etc., then it becomes much harder to
> > > > >secure, but none of these services should be running on a firewall.
> > > > >
> > > > >The bottom line is that there are several good commercial
>firewalls,
> > > > >but that doesn't mean that a Linux box cannot serve as a good, low-
> > > > >end alternative. Especially if cost is one of the main decision
> > > > >factors.
> > > > >
> > > > >-Kent
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >_________________________________
> > > > >FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
> > > > >http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
> > > > >Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >
> > > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
> > > >
> > > > _________________________________
> > > > FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
> > >http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
> > > > Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
> >
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
_________________________________
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
