RE: RPC over HTTP security

[Shawn Wall <sjwall () shaw ca>]

To clarify, I'm not saying it is 'better' or more secure just that I prefer
a VPN for the following reasons:

1. VPN provides authentication and encryption.
2. VPN access can be configured to reject clients if antivirus is not
installed/updated.
3. Granular access to network resources, i.e. access lists can be used to
'contain' remote users.
4. Reduced exposure of network resources to the public, i.e the VPN is
usually terminated on the firewall and once authenticated, secure comms with
specified internal resources is permitted.

In a way some of these features does make a VPN more secure from a control
aspect.

shawn

-----Original Message-----
From: Depp, Dennis M. [mailto:deppdm () ornl gov] 
Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2005 9:16 AM
To: Shawn Wall; Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers;
security-basics () securityfocus com
Subject: RE: RPC over HTTP security

Why is this better than RPC over HTTP?  I also have VPN setup.  However,
being able to access Outlook without having to fireup a VPN is very nice.
Particularly if I want to quickly download my mail before going on a trip or
attending a meeting.

Why do you feel VPN is more secure than RPC over HTTP?

Dennis 

-----Original Message-----
From: Shawn Wall [mailto:sjwall () shaw ca]
Sent: Friday, January 28, 2005 4:12 PM
To: Depp, Dennis M.; 'Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers';
security-basics () securityfocus com
Subject: RE: RPC over HTTP security

I think your best option is to use a VPN to allow your mobile users access
to email if they require the functionality of Outlook vs OWA.
I've deployed this configuration using a PIX and Cisco VPN client. Works
very well.

shawn 

-----Original Message-----
From: Depp, Dennis M. [mailto:deppdm () ornl gov]
Sent: Friday, January 28, 2005 6:19 AM
To: Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers; security-basics () securityfocus com
Subject: RE: RPC over HTTP security

Ansgar,

Answers to your questions.

1)  Because the functionality of RPC over HTTP(S) is a great benefit to
mobile users.
2)  It doesn't.  However, by "bloating" the protocol so it will work over
HTTP, I have also "bloated" the protocol to allow it to work over HTTPS.
This allows me to secure the traffic.

Lets now look at RPC.  What are the major vulnerabilities of RPC?  RPC does
not authenticate prior to allowing the connection to proceed.  Many of the
RPC vulnerabilities would be neutered if RPC was force to authenticate prior
to making the connection.  RPC over HTTP solves this problem by forcing
authentication.  When I add HTTPS to this senario, I have secured my
credentials while they are in an untrusted environment and provided
authentication prior to allowing RPC to proceed.  The RPC traffic is also
passed through the SSL tunnel providing end-to-end security.

Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers [mailto:bugtraq () planetcobalt net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2005 8:22 PM
To: security-basics () securityfocus com
Subject: Re: RPC over HTTP security

On 2005-01-26 sf_mail_sbm () yahoo com wrote:
> We are thinking about deploying RPC over HTTP to access email from the

> Internet

Ask yourself two questions:

1. Why does nobody in his right mind do RPC over untrusted networks?
2. How does bloating a protocol by encapsulating it in plain-text make
   it any better?

Regards
Ansgar Wiechers
--
"Those who would give up liberty for a little temporary safety deserve
neither liberty nor safety, and will lose both."
--Benjamin Franklin