There was just a question on the Vyatta forum about prioritizing in the tunnel: 
http://www.vyatta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1323

 

This sounds like a pretty plausible solution.  Setup a firewall directly in 
front of the PBX & gateways and then all phones nail up  an IPSec connection to 
the firewall.  There you go.  Then all you need to do is worry about physical 
security (bribing the maid as Scott put it).

 

Snom has the much nicer looking 820 out: 
http://sipxecs.blogspot.com/2008/12/new-snom-820.html

 

Mike

 

From: [email protected] 
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Tony Graziano
Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2009 6:40 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [sipx-users] Talking about encryption

 

It would also mean the firewall needs to sit in front of all the private 
network traffic (site-to-site), and the Firewall would have to shape and 
prioritize any traffic between sites giving highest priority to the VPN, with 
the VPN carrying primarily your sip traffic. I am doubtful that the 
vyatta/openvpn solution is mature enough to be able to shape or prioritize 
traffic "inside" the vpn tunnel itself.

But since the aim was to encrypt the traffic, then, yes, a vpn makes the best 
sense. 

Or just using a central solution/sipxecs server, perhaps clustered depending on 
your overall load, and using OPENVPN and SNOM 370 handsets with the vpn client 
tarball, this would make your management points fewer, and perhaps more 
manageable. This way the traffic ic encrypted to the handset itself.

Centrally protecting the main sipx server and your gateways might be easier if 
they were in a central location too.

>>> Alan Denby 01/03/09 6:31 PM >>> Looking at the questions and setup notes, 
>>> using the Vyatta and OpenSBC solution would be a good start. Run that 
>>> server as the firewall, SBC and OpenVPN solution all in one, this would 
>>> encrypt traffic over the network as long as each building had its own Media 
>>> server (also behind the above setup) Running it all as an HA system within 
>>> the VPN would mean it is all encrypted over IP.

The only problem I see could be a slightly higher ping time and the setup would 
have to be forced routes through openSBC. This would work for Internal calls 
between buildings, but once the signal enters the PSTN it would require the 
other end to run encrypted lines to stop eavesdropping.

If this case were to be set up correctly then the only thing that could cause 
eavesdropping would be internal breaks in the network, so access to the VPN 
would have to be limited to Admins only. Setting the VPN up on a different 
subnet would also go towards making it more secure. 

This is a possible solution that I have not tried, but I have had to run end to 
end security for other things like internal messaging and calling through 
desktop programs. This was not easy as the end user is basically not security 
concious as it "isn't My job" mentality continues to function.

Regards

Alan

Online Systems wrote: 

Hello,
 
You may be better off just tacking up site to site VPN's via appropriate
endpoint hardware between your locations and compartmentalizing your
traffic. This should take care of your site to site calling and will
flatten your voice network a bit which should make it easier to manage
centrally.
 
You might also want to do a quick analysis of how much it will cost to
purchase a few switches (10/100 stackable managed should be fine for
most, after all you are talking about 90k per call worst case), PoE
midspans (optional), network cable if you don't happen to have existing
extra jacks at the desks, etc. and physically separate the networks if
concerned about security. It also makes monitoring / troubleshooting on
the voice network much easier. Buy some patch cord locks to install on
the cabling so the patch cables cant be removed from the phones or the
wall to prevent unauthorized devices from being installed on the network.
 
Being occasionally involved in higher security installs where the
customer is concerned about these sort of issues, it always helps to
step back and take a look at the problem from a different perspective.
Sometimes there are lower tech, affordable solutions to your obstacles
that end up working better than choosing the more complicated solution.
Honestly you have a greater chance of someone overhearing your
conversation in the next office than listening to your telephone
conversation via more sophisticated means, (that is unless you happen to
go to work in a heavily armored Faraday cage ever day).
 
I would be very surprised if using such a solution above would even
approach the capital or recurring costs of something like a Cisco
solution, and am confident that the administration load would be less
with a best of breed SipECS solution.
 
 
Josh
 
 
[email protected] wrote:
  

        Hi Michael,
         
          
            

                I don't think you'll get all parties (pbx, phone, gateways) to 
encrypt traffic. 
                    
                      

         
        that´s really a pitty
         
          
            

                There's also two different types of traffic that need to be 
considered for 
                encrypting also...  the signaling and the voice traffic.
                    
                      

        SIPS/SIP over SSL and SRTP...
         
          
            

                At this point in SIP history if this is a "got to have", you 
might be better 
                off with a proprietary solution that encrypts end to end.
                    
                      

        I had to convince my boss not to buy a cisco solution and now you 
suggest this.
         
         
          
            

                The other thing you really need to do is ask yourself, why do I 
need to encrypt 
                voice on my local network?  
                    
                      

        We have ~ 30 buildings connected via WAN, which doesn´t belong to us. 
The lines are rented.
         
          
            

                How much valuable information is being transmitted via voice 
through a point at which it might be >captured on your local network?  
                    
                      

        Getting access to our LAN is too easy, sadly
         
          
            

                In general there is much less valuable information transmitted 
via voice than 
                via data.
                    
                      

        Well, not in our case
         
        If you look at my mentioned cases, where can I encrypt the paths with 
SIPxecs?
            

_______________________________________________
sipx-users mailing list
[email protected]
List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users
Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-users
 
  





_______________________________________________
sipx-users mailing list
[email protected]
List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users
Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-users

Reply via email to