Slashdot Mirror
What Is the Future of Firewalls?
jlmale0 writes "When I mess with my WAP/router at home or coordinate with the network team at work, it seems like I'm stuck in 1995. We're still manually listing IP address/port combinations for our firewall rules. There's a certain simplicity to this when dealing with a single system, but there are firewalls everywhere these days. What's available for managing complex firewall arrangements? What's being developed? Can I take a Visio diagram, run it through a script, and get a list of firewall rules? What about a GUI that illustrates the current system configuration and then lets me drag and drop systems across firewalls, and have the individual firewall ports automatically configured? What about tying a firewall into an authentication system so that when jdoe logs in, only then are the firewalls opened to pass her traffic? What about managing distributed firewalls so that one repository of rules opens up your system's firewalls, the DMZ firewall, and the public firewall all at once? Let's get a conversation started. What cool projects do I need to know about? What cool management features would you like to see? What's next for firewall management?"
When you finish your MBA- it'll all become clear.
Do you get a free Belkin 54g with your MBA?
INTERNET -> PORT80, PORT443
His point being more and more is routed through ports 80 and 443 in an effort to avoid firewall restrictions. I often think he was right. Consequences for firewalls left up to reader.
"Developed internally at Google, this system is designed to utilize common definitions of networks and services and high-level policy files to facilitate the development and manipulation of network access control filters (ACLs) for various platforms." http://code.google.com/p/capirca/
I love how you *nix guys don't ever take end users into consideration. You think "Oh, just learn how to script the stuff together with some shell and you'll be good!".
All the while, the end users are saying "We don't care about having to learn to write a script; just include one with your damned program, and have a standard that routers can accept this file and it will just work and be simple."
I haven't looked, but I'm sure there's and iPhone app for that.
Task Mangler
Anything that lets you automagically configure a firewall from outside of it is a potential exploit waiting to happen. Things that are stupid, slow, and require physical access are that much more secure.
I think that firewall administration has been allowed to remain shoddy because most people who aren't gamers or server admins don't need to change the settings at all. Gamers are usually obsessed enough with playing that they will take the time to figure it out. And sysadmins, well it's their job to know how to do that stuff.
This isn't an excuse for things being the way they are, but an explanation. Most people just vaguely understand that a firewall protects their computer, but they don't know any more than that and will probably never have to configure one. If the archetypal grandmother or joe six pack ever has a reason to manage firewall settings (unlikely) then an easy configuration tool will appear over night. Unless a widespread need arises, limited demand will translate to limited effort spent developing user-friendly tools.
They'll firewall it for you..
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
In a star trek world people would work well together but the money is made coming up with the next biggest and best product meaning you beat our the competitors. Working together often eliminates that huge profit margin one gets when they have the "best" tech for "this need". Open Source solutions are often (not always) designed from this viewpoint that "A collaborative effort will result in an ideal product with the motivation being profit profit profit".
Add on top of that is that there are many things that drive technology. Some needs are speed, others are security, etc etc etc.
In my work for the our "data" is our life blood. If it's hacked, destroyed etc... we're screwed. We sell our information so while speed is often important... security is #1. If I was working for the stock exchange, security would come in second merely because time is ESSENTIAL. Security comes immediately after. Get the gist?
Now, when you're talking high level networking where you're dealing with thousands or even hundreds of thousands of connections simultaneously then you have to combine a mix of things.
This is where it makes it extremely difficult to make a program that does everything in simple man terms. That's why there are network administrators and architects. There are far too many variables to turn into a windows like gui where "Are you sure?" will cover it. Here's a small list of the variables you're going to encounter
- Size of network
- Location of all users (remote and local)
- Security requirements (government contracts often require certain levels)
- Company polices (do you need to have site filters for porn sites)
- What kind of filters will you use
- What kind of hardware is this all operating under
- Many routers run different flavors of linux where some commands are different (Cisco *cough*).
It pretty much comes down to... networking in the home is easy because it is simple. You're going to have X number of boxes connected wired or wirelessly to a single incoming connection. Easy.
However, in the real environment you may have 20+ connections coming in with complex equipment that routes and load balances those incoming and outgoing connections. If someone were create a piece of software for this it would need every single manufacturer of routing equipment to work together. That's just not going to happen.
So... the only common things that can happen are learning to write script once you've thought out your network and that's the easy part.
The "Simple Way" is usually the wrong way when dealing with complex systems.
There are tools that make things easier for "roughing out" what you want, but fine tuning is always breaking out a text editor and making adjustments.
What about the users? Fuck them. They don't even know what an operating system is and don't care what it is, don't care what a firewall is outside of "it keeps the bad guys out," don't care what a router or switch is, and mostly don't care how a network works or even bother to learn how to navigate a file system. Most of all, they cannot be trusted to reliably run a script without somehow screwing it up, even if it's one click of a mouse.
This is why your system administrator treats you like someone who just got off the short bus.
--
BMOs
You mean like defaults?
This signature serves no purpose other than to help you see which posts were made by me.
The BSD 'pf' packet filter is pretty good. There is even a FreeBSD-based project known as pfsense which you might want to take a look at, as it offers a pretty-much drop-in solution for packet filtering, as well as NAT, load balancing, VPN connectivity, etc. There is a web-based administration GUI as well. It looks pretty sweet, but I haven't played with it much in any serious deployment personally.
Your average end user is going to likely be quite satisfied with a basic web-based firewall GUI sitting over top of iptables. However, your average end user is highly unlikely going to need to an in-depth understanding of complex routing tables, queue rules, etc. I mean, why aren't you bitching about Cisco, which is every bit as difficult to work with for complex networks?
For most users, a basic web-based configuration set up is great. For another subset something like Webmin or the Cisco GUI tools will probably do the trick. But there will always been some subset that need to do very complex firewall and routing jobs.
In other words, what the fuck is your problem?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
"Yeah, fuck those end users! We'll make it a bitch and a half to use our product even though the fixes are simple!"
Honestly now, I'm talking about home users, the other people who use firewalls, even though they don't know it. Make it a standard on routers where on the router's config page, it can accept a small text file with ports to be routed to the current connection. Even better, have the program send that information when the game starts, and have the ports un-routed when the game ends. It's a relatively simple, easy fix for the headache that is "finding out the proper ports for XBox Live to work" and entering them manually.
I know how to do it, but let me tell you, I don't know many other people that can install a router to begin with, let alone get their port forwarding to work for Gears of War; and they don't care to learn. Ease of use and the user interfaces on routers haven't improved one bit for consumers from the Belkin I had in 2002; why the should a market completely stagnate in user friendliness for that long?
Oh, that's right. It's because every *nix head doesn't think about the real end user, just what's "most powerful" in terms of features. Design solely for the power users and administrators, and you miss 95% of the market - what Linux has excelled at for many, many years.
fwbuilder also does a great job of managing multiple firewalls even if they are different platforms and will even manage your home router if it has openwrt installed. It will manage everything over ssh, so its definitely secure for remote firewall management over public ip addresses. I have been alpha/beta testing version 4.0 for many months now and there have been a lot of great improvements including cluster support.
Firewalls have been put on the routers (or some intermediate device) instead of the hosts precisely because the hosts can't be trusted. Certain hosts will always be subject to variations of the Ping-of-Death theme and tainted payloads and will never be safe with host-based firewalls.
IPv6 isn't going to eliminate the need for DMZs and stuff like that. Sure, NAT can be don away with, but NAT isn't "firewalling". Really, what we should be talking about is packet filtering, and in this sense, dedicated packet filtering boxes are key. There is no reason that network hosts should be wasting cycles on packet filtering if putting a box out in front a network segment, say, behind a boarder router or in front of an aggregation switch, can dedicate cycles to the task -- especially if the box doing the packet filtering doesn't introduce latency beyond an acceptable level.
I don't have a one-of-those, I just have my scripts call iptables :-/ it's not as flash as drag 'n drop, but I tried programming a virtual usb mouse to automate clicking things on the screen when things happen, but while trying to write the detection software that tells it to click certain rules when somebody plugs their computer into the network, which was detected by pointing a webcam at the network switch to watch when lights came on/off, my head fell off. Turns out, I needed my head on.
The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
Characteristically, firewalls are simply just that: a barrier to entry into a restricted, trusted area unless you're a loud to do so. So I'm confused why I would, first of all, want something 'automagically' configured for me in an enterprise setting? There's a very good reason your network admins at your workplace highly scrutinise over a single IP address: because it's important your infrastructure, IT/perimeter security standards and business, and it's their job to. If they aren't at least, on a high-level, asking you the 5-W's about why you need the rule(s) and you don't have answers, why should they even allow it?
What about tying a firewall into an authentication system so that when jdoe logs in, only then are the firewalls opened to pass her traffic?
That's what tiered firewall-VPN solutions are for.
What about managing distributed firewalls so that one repository of rules opens up your system's firewalls, the DMZ firewall, and the public firewall all at once?
Port knocking is pretty helpful in this, but can also bite your security-through-stealthy-obscurity right in the ass as well.
Can I take a Visio diagram, run it through a script, and get a list of firewall rules?
Visio diagrams are for documentation and suits. I couldn't hold any merit to that because firewall rules aren't just something you slap together (unless you're doing it for fun or at home or want Johnny Cracker hosting pr0n on an anonymous FTP on your computer at home). Flow-based solutions process rules in a top-down fashion, so it takes very good sets of eyes to develop rules that aren't going to be a liability, cause backdoors, trump existing rules and break security or flat out cause things to not work anymore in your production environment.
OK, jlmale0, are you working on requirements or marketing for a product in this space? You can tell us, it's OK.
Yes, find someone who knows something about networking and more importantly about firewalls Try someone who has a CCSP or CCIE:Security as part of their title. Some of the things you are talking about have existed for years on Cisco Pix and ASAs like downloadable ACLs (Where based on your credentials you get firewalled differently) which can be applied across a whole enterprise of firewalls. Dynamic inspection of traffic, like h.323 traffic, so you don't have to open a whole range of ports other than the signalling port.
Dear lord, gui based management of a fleet of firewalls? You want to drag and drop things and make magic happen when you do that? Sounds pretty reckless and dangerous to me. That's like saying because you can ride a bicycle, you should be allowed to drive a hazmat semi at top speed through downtown LA. If you don't understand what the rules are and how they will be applied in the first place, you are likely just going to cause problems (like accidentally shutting off your company's ability to sell their trinkets online because you locked it down on accident.)
By the way, I don't care what the kid from the nerd herd tells you, Belkin and Linksys do not sell firewalls. They sell quasi-routers with nat and some limited form of access control. Finally, UPnP is not the answer to your problem, that just makes it easy for people to put devices on your network to open security holes up in your firewall, which is why it's not supported on most enterprise grade firewalls (and wouldn't work anyway if you looked at the way most enterprises build their networks)
Create a GUI interface using Visual Basic. See if you can track an IP address
Firewall Builder does most of what the submitter is looking for already.
.
Just browsing through here, but I'm surprised (and then again, I'm NOT surprised) at the answers thus far. I get the same replies when I ask a similar question.
What the submitter is talking about is a 21st Century Firewall (capitalized out of reverence). Why not have automatic host discovery? Why should I have to painstakingly come up with a list of all target machines with IP addresses? Is this not 2010? :)
Did everyone miss the question about "jdoe's" computer being connected, and then (and ONLY then) her needed ports being enabled in some other PC on the network? That would actually be a VERY nice capability.
For the record, I've looked at IPCop; Shorewall; SuSEFirewall2; the firewall tools built into Webmin; (and years ago) Mandrake's firewall package; you name it (this is just a partial list off the top of my head). All of them follow the same paradigm: YOU must come up with the list of IPs and ports. If anything moves or changes, YOU have to painstakingly re-enter all of the port/IP info (and hope you didn't miss something!).
So-called GUI interfaces and/or firewall "builder" tools still follow this same basic config paradigm. Just adding automatic discovery would be a HUGE help ... simply put, someone connects a machine, the firewall says, "new PC added at 192.168.1.100, DHCP, it's exposing ports 100, 200 and 500."
Everything I've tried thus far can't even reliably list all PCs on the network! I have to run an NMAP discovery or (under Windoze) something like the Angry IP Scanner. It doesn't make sense.
Some of what the submitter is asking would most properly be done in a really smart firewall/network switch combination. You would probably have to install a small software package on each network machine, too, that could "talk" to the firewall. But the question remains, why isn't this kind of thing available? It *IS* a little surprising (and frustrating) the someone hasn't developed a point-and-click, self-discovering, self-cataloging firewall system by now.
I think the real problem is that true propeller-headed geeks actually *enjoy* poking in stuff with iptables rules at a prompt. They're the most likely to have the skills to develop something like a true GUI firewall, but they're the least likely to want to.
Cogito, igitur comedam pizza.
Yes, there are those outside cases. However, consider how many scenarios can be easily covered with an "exceptioned template".
Take IP tables, for instance. It typically goes something like this: Deny all, do NAT/masq from the inside, do traffic shaping/QoS, and finally allow specific ports/do specific port forwarding. It's formalistic and not all that complex, once you understand it - and it's largely linear, with most of the scripts following the same basics.
For 90%+ of scenarios, it would be easy to instigate a framework for transparent transport of rules between systems (homogeneous and maybe even heterogeneous ones) or automatically setting rules based on inside services. The problem with doing it, however, is that it would provide a negligible benefit over what's out there now (as firewall rules tend to rarely change).
The security ramifications of such an application seem like they'd be hit and miss, internally. Yes. you want to prevent hosts from talking to each other when they've got no reason to - though there are other methods for doing this in a cleaner, less granular/more centralized fashion (802.1q VLANs). It works better because, again, it covers 90%+ of conceivable scenarios with less configuration.
It all comes down to KISS. Sometimes firewall restrictions are appropriate; sometimes something else is. More often than not, though, people use what they know and misapply it for fear of not being able to grasp a new technology in time to properly implement it, and we end up with a gongshow.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
You may not be worth this reply, however, I will try to overcome my Unixism.
"It can scarcely be denied that the supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience." - Albert Einstein
I don't mean to quote and sound all guru-ish, however, this particular quote has a deep meaning with regard to this discussion.
"Shits tough, you have to be tough too." - I think I invented that one.
Basically, if you can't swim then get out of the water, or learn to swim; those are your only choices.
Stuff like networking is zen, it's just bits on a wire. On the other hand, it can be hard. Waah.
Make it a standard on routers where on the router's config page, it can accept a small text file with ports to be routed to the current connection. Even better, have the program send that information when the game starts, and have the ports un-routed when the game ends. It's a relatively simple, easy fix for the headache that is "finding out the proper ports for XBox Live to work" and entering them manually.
That already exists. It's called UPnP. Xbox Live even supports it.
Thanks, well stated. Very constructive and kind.
I still believe that host level security is lacking and should be addressed, because problems can arise from the outside world or within the firewalled subnet.
The assumptions that the outside world is 'big, bad, and evil' and 'my subnet is cookies and cream' is a very bad one and very detrimental to security IMHO. That's why I say security is primarily a host-level concern, because the *real* mindset should be 'everything off my machine is potentially big, bad and evil.'
I don't want to discount the niceties of centralized rules and reporting, or as you point out, potential performance impact. I'm just trying to point out that the security model we've settled into is a result of the hosts being insecure (mostly due to legacy OS's suddenly getting worldwide internet access). Adding a new piece of hardware doesn't fix the core problem, it just patches it- and it still leaves you open to attacks from within your subnet.
Accountability for security should be at the host level.
have the program send that information when the game starts, and have the ports un-routed when the game ends.
This is insane. This really is an insane concept. If you think that the home user is the black-hat botnet operator's bitch, this will only exacerbate the situation. You are removing what little human interaction there is in configuring a router and turning it over to software completely. You really need to examine what you just asked for, because it's stupid.
Why not just supply the user with a pail of K-Y Jelly?
--
BMO
There are two problems with your question.
The first is you may believe tools and diagrams will take the pain out of implementing and enforcing security policy. Network design is systems design. Diagrams are essential in communicating that a system meets the requirements to stakeholders and management who make budgets and can't visualize how improved security adds value. But firewalls and their associated diagrams are just one element of security. What about OS patches, authentication and physical security? You know that firewalls run software and software needs maintenance. Pointing to a well executed diagram won't save you from applying vendor software updates. Are your policies sane? Security tools are only as good as the policies they implement and the people who use them. You're tool may show you that you have correctly hidden an important asset from the outside world, but are all your assets protected? Does your organization give out VPN logins to unqualified users? Are you using a VPN? Can your services run over a tunnel? If your servers or services can be secured do you really need to block all ports and selectively open a few? Can any of your services take advantage of TCP Wrappers?
"When you finish your MBA- it'll all become clear." is spot on. Perform a cost benefit analysis. Figure out how many hours at your rate it will take to to cobble together some scripts or pay a developer for a custom tool. Then figure out how much it would cost to hire a qualified network engineer. Then figure out the cost of loosing business due to denial of service or network intrusions. Then realize that you still probably a network engineer to correct your diagrams and security policies after you use a custom tool. You can always do your own taxes and defend yourself in court, but can you afford to be wrong? Complex problems need people with specialized knowledge.
The second problem is no tool programmer in their right mind would want to write a program to generate scripts from Visio. I'm a programmer, not a network guy, but like many programmers I've run Linux and OpenBSD development and webservers and done my best to keep them secure. I've also used Viso, and Visual Paradigm and some other very expensive commercial tools for creating UML diagrams. In less time than it would take me to figure out how to correctly draw something in Visio, I could have skimmed the man pages and the internet for the correct syntax required to write a rule in iptables or pf. Viso is not an intuitive tool for working in most domains. Adobe Illustrator with all its quirks makes more sense in comparison. If you want a neat toy or project, take a look at GNU DIA, or Argo UML and write patches to generate configuration files. Even if you are successful there is no standard operating system or vendor independent language for defining firewall rules. Don't ever expect to drag and drop a policy to migrate rules from a Linux based appliance to a Cisco router to a Juniper switch to a BSD based appliance. Cisco has made billions by locking in customers to their own standards. Linux and BSD are integrated into many firewall appliances but they also have their own version dependent quirks and special sauce from vendors.
End user devices have easy to use menus already. If you're configuring something that requires use of a cli then you're either: a hobbyist who enjoys learning, a professional who knows what you're doing, or an end user who is in over your head.
Dear lord, gui based management of a fleet of firewalls? You want to drag and drop things and make magic happen when you do that? Sounds pretty reckless and dangerous to me. That's like saying because you can ride a bicycle, you should be allowed to drive a hazmat semi at top speed through downtown LA. If you don't understand what the rules are and how they will be applied in the first place, you are likely just going to cause problems (like accidentally shutting off your company's ability to sell their trinkets online because you locked it down on accident.)
I can't think of a single reason why knowing what the rules do precludes using a GUI tool to simplify and automate management.
Manually editing text is time-consuming, fatiguing and error prone. Have a tool to automate that sort of thing is one of the fundamental reasons for having computers in the first place.
you should not be configuring a mission critical firewall.
Secure perimeters are illusions. Every machine needs its own defense. Firewalls are good for NAT, which foils a few, and stateful inspection, which fools a few more. Otherwise, internal firewalling and boundary checks are the only answer, coupled to download security hashing checks-- and those get bitten, too.
Belief in firewalls and secure perimeters are the reason that some 30% of all machines in a domain are bot'd somehow..... along with Checkpoint, Norton, Microsoft, and so on. A CCIE or CCSP gives you someone that can help, but there's no guarantee that someone won't click on a site that will give your browsers a headache, then the infection, and so on.
The MuSystems guys can tell you about fuzzing attacks that will leave most equipment in a state of mush. With enough pounding, you can break about anything. Sorry to be dour, but you have to use best practices, and protect each indivdual device, not just the perimeter.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
It's a trade-off of security for convenience, sure. It's not something you would enable on anything other than a private home network.
Computers are complex. Something that can do many things in many different ways is always going to be complex to work with. One of the biggest disservices we've done for people in terms of computer and Internet use is telling them that they are simple and anyone can use one without any training. It's not true, it's not likely to ever be true, at least not while staying what we think of as a PC. When it becomes true you've got a WebTV (There might be a few people here who are too young to remember those... crazy) or a video game console.
As to firewalls and routers specifically? I believe UPnP does what you would like for the most part if app developers would make use of it (I haven't ever made use of it that I can think of, so I'm not 100% certain), although I believe having app developers include something that just goes in and modifies firewall rules as a black box to the end user is a risky idea. The app developer has no idea what else the user has on their system and how their changes to the firewall might affect that. This is the sort of thing end users should know about at a basic level, akin to changing a tire, checking coolant, etc. on a car. Many probably don't know and get by just fine, but they should know, it's definitely in their best interest.
I've said this before on here and I'm sure I'll say it many more times. While the internet has provided a lot of good and a lot of knowledge and I wouldn't ever support taking it away from people, you have to wonder what the hell the first guy who thought it would be a good idea to make normal users system adminstrators (that is what a home user is) on the largest, most complex network in the world was thinking.
Actually on our network we've ended up installing personal firewalls AND boundary ones.
They end up protecting from different attacks, really.
It's all about the defense in depth. We also have intrusion detection and other stuff(I'm not going to get real specific).
If nothing else, a set of hardware firewalls are quicker to update against a new attack than umpteen clients.
I don't read AC A human right
let alone get their port forwarding to work for Gears of War
Did the Gears of War developers at least bother to tell you what ports you needed, or did they leave that to be discovered in the forums by a bunch of people guessing random numbers until it kind-of works for some people?
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
If a game can send a "text" file to open up port automagically, so can any malware or malicious site. You could implement a list of "approved" games but then who maintains a list, rejects/accepts entries, etc...?
Hamachi has a 15 user per network limit unless you pay for it though, so you might want to also look into OpenVPN. It's much harder to initially set up, but it's much more flexible.
There are currently a number of applications being developed by DORKA which will allow PHBs to manage their own corporate firewalls from an Excel spreadsheet or Microsoft JET database. The applications are being developed from a usability standpoint rather than a security standpoint which allows all traffic to be allowed by default (IPv6 is ignored for simplicity because nobody understands it anyway). When the software detects a DDoS, Intrusion, or Security Breach in progress, it will send an email to the managing PHB and trigger a rule to route BLAME packets through Layer 8 instead. All there is to the interface is a red button marked "Easy" a Yellow button marked "Out To Lunch", and a red button marked "WTF?". You should find it very exciting.
boycott slashdot February 10th - 17th check out: altSlashdot.org
"Yeah, fuck those end users! We'll make it a bitch and a half to use our product even though the fixes are simple!"
No, the fixes are not simple. I don't know why you feel qualified to proclaim that they are, but you are mistaken.
I'm also not sure where you got the idea that anyone intentionally makes their products difficult to use. It is far more likely that the device you struggle to use is "difficult" due to lack of any effort, not because of a specific effort to make it difficult.
Honestly now, I'm talking about home users, the other people who use firewalls, even though they don't know it. Make it a standard on routers where on the router's config page, it can accept a small text file with ports to be routed to the current connection. Even better, have the program send that information when the game starts, and have the ports un-routed when the game ends. It's a relatively simple, easy fix for the headache that is "finding out the proper ports for XBox Live to work" and entering them manually.
Once again, your simplistic "solution" reveals how little you understand about the problem. Ignoring the technical issues (and the fact that all of this has been possible via uPnP which works much more simply than your proposal), why would a user know what a "router config page" or a "text file" is? Why would a home user know how to acquire this text file or how to submit it to a router config page? You've defined "typical user" in terms of what *you* know how to do, which is just as foolish as a unix admin defining the typical user in terms of what they understand.
I know how to do it, but let me tell you, I don't know many other people that can install a router to begin with, let alone get their port forwarding to work for Gears of War; and they don't care to learn. Ease of use and the user interfaces on routers haven't improved one bit for consumers from the Belkin I had in 2002; why the should a market completely stagnate in user friendliness for that long?
Oh, that's right. It's because every *nix head doesn't think about the real end user, just what's "most powerful" in terms of features. Design solely for the power users and administrators, and you miss 95% of the market - what Linux has excelled at for many, many years.
So much misunderstanding.. so little time. What do "*nix heads" have to do with routers? Very few routers run unix, and home router user interfaces certainly have nothing to do with unix. Why haven't you seen changes in these devices since 2002? Basically because they work well enough for that 95% of the market you mention. You know what has changed? They cost a lot less. This is really all that same 95% give a shit about.
And finally.. what gives you the idea that Linux wants anything to do with this 95%? Linux is made by skilled folks who were nice enough to share so that other skilled folks can use it and hopefully add something back to the pool. That 95% has very little to offer us.
Comments like "linux will never 'win' until it's easy to use" are silly.. Linux already won, it just isn't playing with you.
-Lod
Because the average home computer is already 97 different flavors of pwned. We're not talking about people jumping on your wifi and fucking with your router, we are talking about malware already present on damned near every windows machine in the wild suddenly being able to easily blow whatever firewall might be present wide fucking open.
"linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
..and rubbish. I manage over 90 firewalls as a fraction of my full-time duties and it's a cakewalk. Why? I'm competent with unix (and a bunch of scripting languages). GUI's are for the command-line challenged..
I can't think of a single reason why knowing what the rules do precludes using a GUI tool to simplify and automate management.
I can think of lots of reasons. The only reason I can think of having a GUI automated management tool is so some dumbass that doesn't know what he's doing can appear to manage firewalls.
Now, I can see the purpose of a GUI inspection tool for independent verification. But even then, I believe automated scripts are better.
Manually editing text is time-consuming, fatiguing and error prone. Have a tool to automate that sort of thing is one of the fundamental reasons for having computers in the first place.
This is why we have scripts. I would never manually configure the thing more than once, and that's only during the initial discovery phase. After that, it's script and test, script and test, then deploy when the scripts are spotless. This way I can always recreate anything at any time, without having to go dig up the guy that configured firewall xya 3 years ago and moved on to another division or even external job.
Scripts are repeatable. Scripts and their results can be objectively validated and verified.
GUI tools cannot. They're a nicety for inspection for those that cannot read or understand the scripts, however.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Secure perimeters are illusions. Every machine needs its own defense. Firewalls are good for NAT, which foils a few, and stateful inspection, which fools a few more. Otherwise, internal firewalling and boundary checks are the only answer, coupled to download security hashing checks-- and those get bitten, too.
Secure perimeters are real, if done correctly. I know of one personally that has not been breached in a decade. :)
Every machine needs to be properly configured (I guess that can be stated as having its own defense, but I doubt you meant it this way)
Firewalls are not good for NAT. They have nothing to do with NAT.
Firewalls are not good for stateful inspection, they have nothing to do with that either.
What firewalls do is allow connections inbound and outbound. The better ones allow for more rich rules like which protocols on which ports, which machines/macs can connect or even force a user authentication before they can connect to an IP/port. There are also the on the desktop firewalls that allow an application IP/port designation. But that's all a Firewall does.
You do have one point though - if you're running MS desktops yes, they can be owned if they're allowed to connect to external entities at all, and that includes USB drives.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
So your objection is with some *nix guys sense of superiority, rather than with the actual issues. Your problem can likely be fixed by one form of anti-psychotic or anti-depressant or another. I mean, you come to what amounts to a forum for tech geeks, most of which aren't just MCSEs, but who deal with all sorts of OSs, and with firewalls, with pretty complicated systems based on iptables and other firewall solutions, and complain because they suggest scripting your solution.
Live with it. GUIs have inherent limitations. Draw a non-trivial network diagram and you'll see why it's so difficult to build automated tools for the job, and why some of the uber-simplified tools like uPNP in fact introduce serious security issues. Unfortunately routing, firewalls, VPNs and the like can grow in complexity very quickly even in home user situations. Solutions to these issues are often non-trivial and require a degree of expertise, and that means going beyond simplistic point-and-clicks and drop down menus, and means, one way or the other, some kind of scripting.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I really agree with Firethorn:
- Keep the firewall simple. Its job is to keep the rough bulk of attacks from an extranet outside.
- Protect your data where it resides (always!), even against intranet abuse (strong(!) authentication, working access control).
- Monitor use (intrusion detection, normal use / abuse patterns, traffic anomalities, logs)
In todays environment there are plenty of attack vectors that circumvent elaborate firewall constructs (like: USB sticks being used for data exchange, laptops being connected to arbitrary networks while on the road and then brought back into the company network, Blackberrys or iPhones being used to create additional (non-firewalled) connections to the Net, ...) so the distinction between inside and outside has mostly become moot, except (as stated above) for a rough triage.
Far too many company networks today follow the clam model: Strong (and inflexible) shell, mushy interior.
Just thinking out loud, but... If I don't know a thing about electricity and don't want to learn it, I pay a specialist that will put wires in my walls and install switches and devices for my convenience. Nobody thinks about making DIY wiring that would be easy enough for an average American Housewife to install. Why are computers always treated differently than other necessary stuff people have at home? Why is it OK to pay thousands of dollars for water or electric installations at your home, but it would be wrong to pay a few hundred for a proper computer network installation? If you can't do it alone, don't do it. And, it's fine by the way, because noone is able to learn everything and be good at it.
When you finish your MBA- it'll all become clear.
After I got my MSSE (I guess the MBA for Nerds, though I didn't realize it at the time), I figured that was because all firewalls were supposed to be rendered obsolete and unnecessary by IPv6. Which explains why we're still stuck in 1995.
So yeah, this is the answer, this is the ending. I shall drive without license, without clothing, without direction, and if I make it to Arkansas fine; if I'm running late; if I'm running a numbers game, it doesn't matter, I'll keep on running! Because a body in motion tends to stay in motion, and it's better to feel. Pain is better than emptiness. Emptiness is better than nothing; and nothing is better than this.
What about tying a firewall into an authentication system so that when jdoe logs in, only then are the firewalls opened to pass her traffic?
Novell was doing much of what the OP was asking for, back circa 1997, with their BorderManager product.
Unfortunately, Novell always seemed to have the evil MBAs running the company [is there such a good MBA?], and, the last I heard, BorderManager was allowed [decreed? required?] to wither on the vine.
But BorderManager, as originally envisioned [and it was a helluva nice vision], provided a spectacular framework for dealing with these problems.
Oh well, only the good die young.