OSEC

Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email hr@neohapsis.com
 
From: Talisker (TaliskerNETWORKINTRUSION.CO.UK)
Date: Mon Mar 05 2001 - 11:55:39 CST

  • Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

    Robert

    Thankyou very much for such a frank and honest reply, truly refreshing these
    days. (with a few exceptions)
    I was considering the virtues of Guard providing more defence in depth, ie
    not replacing a firewall, but adding an element of protection and visibility
    between trusted networks within the depths of the organisation. For the
    reasons you mention a firewall isn't always feasible, but the insider threat
    is real and needs to be addressed.

    I apologise for not making myself clear regarding placement of the product.

    Thanks Again
    Andy

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Robert Graham" <robert_david_grahamyahoo.com>
    To: "Talisker" <Taliskernetworkintrusion.co.uk>;
    <FOCUS-IDSSECURITYFOCUS.COM>
    Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2001 11:41 PM
    Subject: RE: BlackICE Guard

    > The "Guard" version of BlackICE is not appropriate for most people. It is
    > for customers where security is the SECOND priority; if security is your
    TOP
    > priority, then you shouldn't even consider it. Get a real firewall and use
    > our "Sentry" version of BlackICE.
    >
    > I know it is rather shocking to security professionals, but for a lot of
    > people, things like SLAs, performance, and uptime are their top
    priorities.
    > While they want to make their networks secure, they dedicate more
    > money/manpower to increasing uptime and performance. These are customers
    > that don't have a firewall in place, or haven't dedicated enough time to
    > configure their firewall well.
    >
    > I want to make this point clear because any security professional looking
    at
    > Guard will be unimpressed (they should just be looking at our traditional
    > NIDS instead, which really IS cool).
    >
    > The two primary "features" of Guard is (a) it can forward packets with
    > extremely low latency at full bandwidth and (b) when it fails (power loss,
    > crash, hang), traffic continues to flow through it (unsecured).
    >
    > Any security professional will tell you that point (b) is WRONG. If a
    > firewall fails, its duty is to shutdown all traffic until the problem can
    be
    > fixed rather than allow an attacker to compromise the network. However, we
    > have found that this (correct) philosophy is one of the reasons customers
    do
    > not purchase firewalls. Since their top priority is uptime, they want a
    > device that behaves incorrectly from a security perspective.
    >
    > Therefore, our primary design goal for Guard is "How can we improve
    security
    > for those who care more about performance/uptime/SLAs?". We designed it so
    > that even if it did nothing, people wouldn't be afraid of plugging it into
    > their network. Because it "bridges" packets (rather than "routing" like
    most
    > firewalls), you don't have to reconfigure your network (i.e. it has no IP
    > address). It has a hardware "shunt" that bypasses our box upon
    > power-loss/crash/hang. It forwards packets with extremely low latency
    > (measured in microseconds), and can handle absolutely anything a 100-mbps
    > wire can throw at it. (~300,000 packets/second full-duplex).
    >
    > Therefore, the answers to your questions are:
    > >How effective is it?
    > From a security perspective, it isn't as effective as a firewall. From an
    > uptime perspective, it is extraordinarily effective at not causing
    problems
    > on your network.
    >
    > >What hardware have you put it on?
    > We recommend the Dell 1550 or the Compaq DL360. These boxes have peer-PCI
    > buses and dual-CPUs, both of which are needed in order to achieve the
    > ~300-kpps bi-directional forwarding rate as well as doing full NIDS.
    >
    > >Any cheaper alternatives?
    > >Any more effective alternatives, other than a firewall?
    > Unless you fit the extremely narrow needs we've defined, pretty much
    > anything is both a better and cheaper alternative.
    >
    > >Anything else that may dissuade me from "having a go"
    > Well, since you ARE a security professional, I doubt that this will match
    > your needs.
    >
    > Robert Graham
    > CTO/Network ICE
    >
    > PS: Actually, most of our sales of Guard so far have been to security
    > professionals who understand the limitations.
    >
    > PPS: Our marketing/sales people do not like me discussing Guard because of
    > the way I try to dissuade people from buying it. They always want to pump
    > the technology as curing everything from world hunger to the common cold;
    in
    > contrast, I want to be upfront about things.
    >
    > PPPS: The reality is that this is just another deployment option for our
    > NIDS; it shouldn't even be thought of as a separate product. The NIDS part
    > of the product are pretty strong, but the "blocking" features are weak. As
    I
    > mention above, it doesn't matter that the blocking is weak because you are
    > getting better blocking than you had to begin with and it isn't causing
    SLA
    > concerns.
    >
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Focus on Intrusion Detection Systems
    > [mailto:FOCUS-IDSSECURITYFOCUS.COM]On Behalf Of Talisker
    > Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2001 4:31 AM
    > To: FOCUS-IDSSECURITYFOCUS.COM
    > Subject: BlackICE Guard
    >
    >
    > Hi
    > BlackICE Guard
    > At first sight this looks like quite an interesting tool, but what are the
    > feelings of those of you out there that have "had a go"?
    > It seems to fall somewhere between an IDS and a Firewall
    > The information I have on it is
    > <snip>
    > BlackICE Guard is a high performance in-line intrusion protection tool. It
    > sits in-line, inspecting all network traffic and filters out hostile
    packets
    > in real-time. It gives a security administrator the ability to completely
    > eliminate hostile traffic from a segment before it can damage a system.
    > Guard can sit between a firewall and a router, between two switches, or in
    > front of a mainframe. The benefit of Guard is that that it offers an
    > alternative deployment solution to those security professionals who are
    > unable install BlackICE Agents on critical servers, or for whom the
    alerting
    > functionality of Sentry is not a sufficient level of protection.
    > </snip>
    > The information I'm looking for is
    > How effective is it?
    > What problems have you encountered?
    > What hardware have you put it on?
    > Any cheaper alternatives?
    > Any more effective alternatives, other than a firewall?
    > Anything else that may dissuade me from "having a go"
    >
    > Thanks in advance for any time you can devote to this
    >
    > Take Care
    > Andy
    > http://www.networkintrusion.co.uk
    > Talisker's Network Security Tools List
    >
    > Security Tools Notification
    > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/security-tools/join
    >
    >
    > _________________________________________________________
    > Do You Yahoo!?
    > Get your free yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
    >
    >