Security Basics mailing list archives
Re: RPC over HTTP security
From: Barrie Dempster <barrie () reboot-robot net>
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 19:53:55 +0000
On Fri, 2005-02-04 at 10:54 +0100, Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers wrote:
Reverse proxying and NAT are two different things.
Indeed they are and neither of them help secure an OWA server to any real degree.
Having a NIX box in place doesn't offer any security above having a firewall unless the NIX box actually has something running on it.That's why it has. Regards Ansgar Wiechers
I know that. The guy offering the original advice however said that a NIX box was needed but didn't specify what the NIX box would actually do, I was pointing out that he should have mentioned what could be running on it in order to be clear on what the security mechanism is. To be honest, it doesn't matter all that much which OS is in front of the OWA server as long as the OS is secured properly and runs some sort of protection or monitoring system. -- With Regards.. Barrie Dempster (zeedo) - Fortiter et Strenue blog: http://zeedo.blogspot.com site: http://www.bsrf.org.uk [ gpg --recv-keys --keyserver www.keyserver.net 0x96025FD0 ]
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Current thread:
- RE: RPC over HTTP security Shawn Wall (Jan 31)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: RPC over HTTP security Depp, Dennis M. (Feb 01)
- Re: RPC over HTTP security Steve (Feb 02)
- Re: RPC over HTTP security Barrie Dempster (Feb 03)
- Re: RPC over HTTP security Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers (Feb 04)
- Re: RPC over HTTP security Barrie Dempster (Feb 07)
- Re: RPC over HTTP security Barrie Dempster (Feb 03)