RE: Remote Desktop vs VPN on Windows 2003

["Roger A. Grimes" <roger () banneretcs com>]

If I was supposed to do it, the RFC would say NEVER do it.  But the
protocol actually has the flexibility built in. 

As long as the Internet is an unsafe place, I will move my ports around
unless I need the standardization part.  

BTW, so far 20,000 scans against my system, only 5 guesses, no one
close...nothing creative.  I'm sure I'll start to see the slow port
scans come in soon.

Roger 

-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Dumass [mailto:joe_dumass () hotmail com] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 4:21 PM
To: Roger A. Grimes; security-basics () securityfocus com
Subject: RE: Remote Desktop vs VPN on Windows 2003



I think that the problem with arbitrarily assigning services to
non-standard ports is that it disrupts the flow of communication.  Is it
somewhat more secure against worms, etc?  Maybe... but the protocol
definition exists to define how to standardize communication for a
reason.  If our partners go out and redefine https to non-standard
ports, we would have to open new rules in our firewalls to allow
communication to them, resulting in a less secure environment than
simply allowing out-bound 443, and more of an administrative burden of
trying to remember what outbound 8888, 4422, 1192, 65213, etc are.



-----Original Message-----
From: Roger A. Grimes [mailto:roger () banneretcs com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 12:53 PM
To: Paris E. Stone; Jeff Randall; security-basics () securityfocus com
Subject: RE: Remote Desktop vs VPN on Windows 2003

Security through obscurity is a type of security, and it works...just
not in a vacuum...and not alone.

Almost all major Internet worms would have be rendered defenseless by
simply changing the port number one port up. 99.9% of hacks are
automated using worms, viruses, and malicious scripts.  Almost of of
them (9999.99%) only look on the default port.  Fastest worm ever..SQL
Slammer...only worked on the default SQL port. Code Red...only port 80.
Spambots look for ports 25 and 80. FTP exploits ONLY look for port 21. I
could go on and on.

Security by obscurity works, and works well. Come find my RDP port on my
domain at banneretcs.com.  Prize (free book) to the first person who
finds it. Go.

Roger

************************************************************************
***
*Roger A. Grimes, Banneret Computer Security, Computer Security
Consultant *CPA, CISSP, MCSE: Security (NT/2000/2003/MVP), CNE (3/4),
CEH, CHFI
*email: roger () banneretcs com
*cell: 757-615-3355
*Author of Malicious Mobile Code:  Virus Protection for Windows by
O'Reilly *http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/malmobcode
*Author of Honeypots for Windows (Apress)
*http://www.apress.com/book/bookDisplay.html?bID=281
************************************************************************
****



-----Original Message-----
From: Paris E. Stone [mailto:pstone () alhurra com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 10:40 AM
To: Roger A. Grimes; Jeff Randall; security-basics () securityfocus com
Subject: RE: Remote Desktop vs VPN on Windows 2003

"Security through Obscurity" i.e. put it on a different port, is not
security at all.

Rdesktop on the internet, is generally a bad idea, no matter what port
it runs on.


Put a firewall in front of it if possible, if not, run a software
firewall and then add openvpn.

www.openvpn.net is free, and will allow IPSEC connectivity that you can
use to access the machine, then you get MSTSC(remote desktop) access
over the tunnel.

-----Original Message-----
From: Roger A. Grimes [mailto:roger () banneretcs com]
Sent: Friday, January 14, 2005 5:16 PM
To: Jeff Randall; security-basics () securityfocus com
Subject: RE: Remote Desktop vs VPN on Windows 2003

I can think of NO reason not to use Remote Desktop.  Remote Desktop is
fast and secure.  Everything is encrypted past the logon name. To get
additional security assurance, change the default TCP port from 3389 to
something randomly high...like 58645 (which you can do with a regedit on
the server...just google it).  Then add the new port number to your
server address...like www.example.com:58645.

Roger

************************************************************************
***
*Roger A. Grimes, Banneret Computer Security, Computer Security
Consultant *CPA, CISSP, MCSE: Security (NT/2000/2003/MVP), CNE (3/4),
CEH, CHFI
*email: roger () banneretcs com
*cell: 757-615-3355
*Author of Malicious Mobile Code:  Virus Protection for Windows by
O'Reilly *http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/malmobcode
*Author of Honeypots for Windows (Apress)
*http://www.apress.com/book/bookDisplay.html?bID=281
************************************************************************
****



-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Randall [mailto:Jeff.Randall () ksg-llc net]
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2005 3:23 PM
To: security-basics () securityfocus com
Subject: Remote Desktop vs VPN on Windows 2003

I have setup a web server running win2k3 and was curious about remotely
accessing it with an XP box.  Only one requirement, it has to be FREE.
=20

Here is what I have setup and as of now working but I would like in the
end to only run one.

1.      RRAS using PPTP.  It's not a DC so I use local accounts.
2.      VNC.  TiteVNC to be specific.
3.      Remote Desktop - went into the admin tools and set the
encryption level to high.

Please no crazy setups like upgrade to DC and run IAS for Radius or
running IPSEC tunnels, just would like peoples thoughts on the security
level of each of these programs and what they feel are the most secure.
If you can get specific about encryption, keys, key lengths, that would
be great.  Thanks