firewall-wizards@listserv.icsalabs.com
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://listserv.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
firewall-wizards-request@listserv.icsalabs.com
You can reach the person managing the list at
firewall-wizards-owner@listserv.icsalabs.com
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of firewall-wizards digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Coding a custom firewall manager for multiple firewall
brands. Feasible? (plopz)
2. Re: Coding a custom firewall manager for multiple firewall
brands. Feasible? (K K)
3. Re: Coding a custom firewall manager for multiple firewall
brands. Feasible? (david@lang.hm)
4. Re: Coding a custom firewall manager for multiple firewall
brands. Feasible? (Marcin Antkiewicz)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 09:52:56 -0700 (PDT)
From: plopz <minggyang@gmail.com>
Subject: [fw-wiz] Coding a custom firewall manager for multiple
firewall brands. Feasible?
To: firewall-wizards@listserv.icsalabs.com
Message-ID: <24275584.post@talk.nabble.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Hi everyone,
I'd just recently got an extra job role as a firewall administrator and I'm
faced with a network that consists of multitudes of firewall brands (nokia,
sidewinder etc. ) bulging with almost 3000+ rules. The networks are also
segmented and structured in such a way that adding a new path from one host
to another services requires multiple entries into various firewalls that
are in the path. As the requests for new connectivity come in hundreds or
more per week, I feel that the current implementation is not really
scalable. (manual data entries into firewalls and fight-fire
trouble-shooting :(
I'd look at existing firewall managment tools such as solsoft, algosoft etc.
but they don't seems to cover some of the brands that we have. There are
also budget issues, red tapes, securities, stability etc etc issues from
third party vendor...
I'm contemplating on trying to code a custom firewall manager that is able
to handle the daily change request and push down the different rules into
the different brand of firewalls in our network. Do you guys think it's
worth the effort or acquiring a third party firewall manger is better?
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Coding-a-custom-firewall-manager-for-multiple-firewall-brands.-Feasible--tp24275584p24275584.html
Sent from the Firewall Wizards mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 21:40:14 -0500
From: K K <kkadow@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [fw-wiz] Coding a custom firewall manager for multiple
firewall brands. Feasible?
To: Firewall Wizards Security Mailing List
<firewall-wizards@listserv.icsalabs.com>
Message-ID:
<dc718edc0906301940p47f58317r14412b6a9421923@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Check out Matasano's "Playbook":
http://runplaybook.com/
I tried it about a year ago, was impressed.
Kevin
On 6/30/09, plopz <minggyang@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> I'd just recently got an extra job role as a firewall administrator and I'm
> faced with a network that consists of multitudes of firewall brands (nokia,
> sidewinder etc. ) bulging with almost 3000+ rules. The networks are also
> segmented and structured in such a way that adding a new path from one host
> to another services requires multiple entries into various firewalls that
> are in the path. As the requests for new connectivity come in hundreds or
> more per week, I feel that the current implementation is not really
> scalable. (manual data entries into firewalls and fight-fire
> trouble-shooting :(
>
> I'd look at existing firewall managment tools such as solsoft, algosoft etc.
> but they don't seems to cover some of the brands that we have. There are
> also budget issues, red tapes, securities, stability etc etc issues from
> third party vendor...
>
> I'm contemplating on trying to code a custom firewall manager that is able
> to handle the daily change request and push down the different rules into
> the different brand of firewalls in our network. Do you guys think it's
> worth the effort or acquiring a third party firewall manger is better?
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/Coding-a-custom-firewall-manager-for-multiple-firewall-brands.-Feasible--tp24275584p24275584.html
> Sent from the Firewall Wizards mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> _______________________________________________
> firewall-wizards mailing list
> firewall-wizards@listserv.icsalabs.com
> https://listserv.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards
>
--
Sent from my mobile device
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 21:06:09 -0700 (PDT)
From: david@lang.hm
Subject: Re: [fw-wiz] Coding a custom firewall manager for multiple
firewall brands. Feasible?
To: Firewall Wizards Security Mailing List
<firewall-wizards@listserv.cybertrust.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0906302033490.11336@asgard.lang.hm>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009, plopz wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I'd just recently got an extra job role as a firewall administrator and I'm
> faced with a network that consists of multitudes of firewall brands (nokia,
> sidewinder etc. ) bulging with almost 3000+ rules. The networks are also
> segmented and structured in such a way that adding a new path from one host
> to another services requires multiple entries into various firewalls that
> are in the path. As the requests for new connectivity come in hundreds or
> more per week, I feel that the current implementation is not really
> scalable. (manual data entries into firewalls and fight-fire
> trouble-shooting :(
>
> I'd look at existing firewall managment tools such as solsoft, algosoft etc.
> but they don't seems to cover some of the brands that we have. There are
> also budget issues, red tapes, securities, stability etc etc issues from
> third party vendor...
>
> I'm contemplating on trying to code a custom firewall manager that is able
> to handle the daily change request and push down the different rules into
> the different brand of firewalls in our network. Do you guys think it's
> worth the effort or acquiring a third party firewall manger is better?
one thing to note is that some of the brands that you have are not very
receptive to remote administration.
Sidewinder actually has an extensive command line environment, but it's
not well documented in their manuals, but the help functions and some
examination of the output (cf <section> help and cf <section> query) make
it fairly easy to figure out. note that for many cases you will need to
execute many commands to set everything up. one gotcha to watch out for is
that sidewinder has selinux-like permissions, so you have an extra file
type to worry about for your scripts.
the one thing I haven't taken the time to look up is if there is a way
short of expect to ssh in to a sidewinder, srole (change to the admin) and
continue to have a script run)
I don't know if there is any way to script rules in and out of checkpoint
firewalls (your nokias), if anyone can point me at things I would
defiantly be interested.
I would start by trying to categorize the rule change requests that you
are getting. if there are significant patterns, than automating it
shouldn't be too hard, if ther eare no strong patterns I suspect that you
will spend as much time manipulating your automatin tool as you would the
firewalls.
for this sort of thing I am a big believer in home-grown tools. the
one-size-fits-none nature of the do-everything tools doesn't attract me.
another thing to keep in mind is that by centralizing the management
like this, you are working to save time and eliminate simple mistakes that
keep things from working, but you will make it _much_ easier to make
mistakes the other way and open up too much access. the management tool is
also a _very_ poerful thing for any attacker to get control of.
having lots of segments with multiple firewall technologies is probably a
sign of one of two things.
1. the business grew by aquisition and each company that was purchased
used a different firewall and the result is just pasted togeather
2. someone made a deliberate choice to provide defense in depth with
diversity so that a failure/exploit in one technology (or user error
in rule entry) would be limited in how much damage it could do.
if you are in case #2 you should think a little bit before you throw away
the advantages to get the time savings. if you have clueful management
ask them about it (and in any case, make sure they know about what
tradeoff you are making)
if you are in case #1 decide if you want to take advantage of the
diversity or not. if you don't, seriously start a campaign to standardize
the firewalls on one technology that you can automate (ideally something
that you can script, think of the advantages of being able to have a web
page for _some_ _standard_ requests that authenticates the requester and
implements the rule without you getting involved) you don't have to
replace them rapidly, just start replacing them as you get the chance.
you may also want to talk to management about eliminating some of the
firewalls. if you are getting hundreds of requests a week, your current
set of 3000 rules is only about half a year's worth of requests. either
you are turning off a lot of requests, are combining many requests into
a single rule, or your numbers aren't adding up.
at my place we have 60 or so firewall locations (each with a HA pair of
firewalls), we just did a report from our ticketing systems and find that
we are getting ~10 requests/day for the last year, and have 30,000 or so
rules around the network. it's not fun, but I'm not convinced that a
central management is a magic wand to make the pain go away although some
of my co-workers are)
David Lang
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 00:54:58 -0500
From: Marcin Antkiewicz <firewallwizards@kajtek.org>
Subject: Re: [fw-wiz] Coding a custom firewall manager for multiple
firewall brands. Feasible?
To: Firewall Wizards Security Mailing List
<firewall-wizards@listserv.icsalabs.com>
Message-ID:
<7ed5f2120906302254h6308f9dak2dc94b3790ad47d4@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> I'd just recently got an extra job role as a firewall administrator and I'm
> faced with a network that consists of multitudes of firewall brands (nokia,
> sidewinder etc. ) bulging with almost 3000+ rules. The networks are also
> segmented and structured in such a way that adding a new path from one host
> to another services requires multiple entries into various firewalls that
> are in the path. As the requests for new connectivity come in hundreds or
> more per week, I feel that the current implementation is not really
> scalable. (manual data entries into firewalls and fight-fire
> trouble-shooting :(
I am in a similar situation, with an environment that has more
firewalls than sensible
people will report as a count of their fw rules.
Form my experience, you will find software that will analyse the
aggregate of your
ruleset without _much_ trouble. Tuffin, FireMon, BMC Patrol, yada
yada. Some are better,
some are crufty but, if your goal is to get "rule masking" or some
policy warnings,
that will work fine.
Playbook seems quite nice for CLI managed devices, but they do not
support Checkpoint.
Opsec CPMI promises remote access to the databases which, in theory
would allow 3rd
party rule management, but I was not able to find anyone who sells
such product. On the
other hand, my attempts to get LEA to work, and a few
less-than-vanilla upgrades destroyed
whatever hope I had for this fine product line (OPSEC and whatever
else comes from CheckPoint).
--
Marcin Antkiewicz
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
firewall-wizards mailing list
firewall-wizards@listserv.icsalabs.com
https://listserv.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards
End of firewall-wizards Digest, Vol 39, Issue 1
***********************************************
No comments:
Post a Comment