Great Circle Associates Firewalls
(January 1998)
 

Indexed By Date: [Previous] [Next] Indexed By Thread: [Previous] [Next]

Subject: Licensing
From: Andre Mintz <almintz @ digex . net>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 02:41:56 -0500
To: firewalls @ GreatCircle . com, raptor-list @ udc . com, fw-1-mailinglist @ us . checkpoint . com

I need to access machines being protected by a firewall via a backend
network for administrative/monitoring purposes. The firewall solutions are
Raptor & Check Point. I need to determine how licensing is tracked on these
firewalls (IP address, MAC address, etc.).
The problem:
	1-The backend network used for maintenance connects to every machine in
the web farm. Thus, every 	  ARPed IP address will hit the firewall causing
the firewall to believe it is protecting more than 	  the alloted licensed
amount. 
	2-If I use solution A (the prefered method) I maintain a DMZ which will
allow me to keep only one 	  backend network for all machines in the farm
without the concerns of a "backdoor" into the 	  	  protected machines.
However, this solution does not solve the ARP problem unless I relpace the
       	  switch with a router for every firewall in the farm.
	3-If I use solution B I will need to seperatethe backend network into
"protected" & "unprotected" 	  machines via a router which reduces the
number of routers needed. However, this causes me some 	  concern about the
"backdoor" issue if a router is comprimised (I would probably just set up a
	  second backend network). This also does not solve the ARP problem for
the machines on the 	  	  "protected" network.
	4-Solution C, with IP forwarding turned on on the "protected" machines,
offers the same concerns as 	  solution B. With IP forwarding turned off on
the "protected" machines, there is no way to backup 	  the firewalls
(except putting a floppy into each firewall).
	5-(This is the solution I'm currently implementing) Go with solution A and
put the "DMZ" interface 	  of each firewall on a seperate 10.x.x.x subnet,
thus eliminating the ARP problem. This however,         	  creates an
administrative nightmare for the number of machines I'm talking about here.   


   Internet
	|
	|
    Router
	|
	|		 (A)
   Firewall-------------------switch---------Backend Network (Backups &
maintenance) several IP's
	|
	|		 (B)
     Hub----------------------switch---------Backend Network (Backups &
maintenance) several IP's
	|
	| 
 ------------
 |		|
 |		|
 |		|
www	   Database
 |		|
 |		|
 ------------
 	|
	|		 (C)
     Hub---------------------switch----------Backend Network (Backups &
maintenance) Several IP's

I apologize for the long winded discertation, but I wanted you to have all
the options I considered. I'm open for suggestions at this point. I think I
could use a fresh approach.
Thanks in advance.

+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
|Andre' L. Mintz				|
|DIGEX Security Services			|
|Director, Security Products Operations		|
|DIGEX, Inc.					|
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
|almintz @
 digex .
 net	| E-mail		|
|301-847-5953		| Office		|
|301-847-6215		| Fax			|
|888-688-7995		| Pager			|
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
|DIGEX Security Services Customer Support 	|
|301-847-5008					|
|fire @
 digex .
 net					|
|http://support.dss.digex.net			|
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+

Indexed By Date Previous: RE: nmap tool
From: Robert Ståhlbrand <robert . stahlbrand @ nmac . ericsson . se>
Next: New Member
From: "Feil, Andreas" <Andreas . Feil @ telekom . de>
Indexed By Thread Previous: Intrusion story
From: Steve Brown <sjbrown @ bellsouth . net>
Next: New Member
From: "Feil, Andreas" <Andreas . Feil @ telekom . de>

Google
 
Search Internet Search www.greatcircle.com