Re: Cisco Clean Access & Impulse Point...

[Chris Boniforti - Lynn University <CBoniforti () LYNN EDU>]

We (Lynn University) 1800FTE, have piloted both CCA and Impulse Point.
We went with Impulse Point after 30 day eval. Of each product.

CCA install was horrible and Cisco techs seemed to know little about the
product.  We are a simple designed network and they could not get the
product to route between our two core routers (Cisco 6509's).

CCA seemed like a pretty good product but a bit cumbersome to manage and
honestly I got the feeling that Cisco does not have a clear picture on
what they want this product to do.  I went to Cisco Networkers last
month and asked for them to explain to me the difference between CCA and
their NAC initiative.  They could not explain it to me clearly.  Their
NAC initiative seems to be what Cisco is pushing for the future and I am
concerned about future developments with CCA.

Impulse Point installed easily and is managed by their company.  Version
2.1 has the ability to segment through VLAN's now and some other
enhancements.  We have not deployed to students yet so I do not have
that experience yet.  We will see in September?

 

If you would like more information please feel free to call me.

 

Christian Boniforti

Director of Information Technology

Lynn University

3601 N. Military Trail

Boca Raton, FL 33431

(O) 561.237.7163

(F) 561.237.7115

(C) 561.703.6130

  _____  

From: Mark Staples [mailto:mstaples () MAIL MCG EDU] 
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 3:41 PM
To: SECURITY () LISTSERV EDUCAUSE EDU
Subject: [SECURITY] Cisco Clean Access & Impulse Point...

 

Anyone pilot both CCA and Impulse Point (http://www.impulse.com/)?
Impulse Point was designed for higher ed and is priced very
attractively.  So far, we've only seen presentations and nothing live.

Any feedback would be great.

 

Mark

 

-----
Mark Staples
Director of Information Security/Chief Information Security Officer
IT Research Liaison
Medical College of Georgia
Office: 706-721-1577
mstaples () mcg edu

 

--------

 

All information in the communication, including attachments, is strictly
confidential and intended solely for delivery to the addressee(s)
identified above (ie, To/cc/bc), and may contain privileged,
confidential, proprietary and /or intellectual property entitled to
protection from disclosure under applicable law.  If you are not the
intended recipient, please take note that any use, distribution or
copying of this communication is unauthorized and may be unlawful.  If
you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender,
delete this correspondence from your computer, and destroy any printed
copies of this communication.


> > > franklin () TXSTATE EDU 07/14/05 3:13 PM >>>

This is a response from our network lead who implemented CCA a month or
so ago:

I got tired of trying to keep up with the IP's used for windows update.
Using the host names is much better, but even then it's a moving target.
Microsoft sometimes adds new sub domains and in the latest version of
the update page it's a url under microsoft.com.

We are allowing traffic to everything ending in microsoft.com and
g.msn.com. That way the updates always work (so far) and students can
search for and download patches manually. There are cases when windows
update claims that a machine is fully patched but it is still missing
something. The helpdesk can tell what's missing from the reports and the
student can search for KBxxxx and download and install it manually.

Anders Engle
Systems Programmer I
Texas State University

-----Original Message-----
From: Flagg, Martin D. [mailto:FlaggMD () HIRAM EDU]
<mailto:FlaggMD () HIRAM EDU%5d>  
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 1:13 PM
To: SECURITY () LISTSERV EDUCAUSE EDU
Subject: [SECURITY] Windows Updates and Cisco Clean Access


We are implementing Cisco Clean Access (formally Perfigo).  It has gone
really well but we keep coming up with problems with Windows Update, it
fails because CCA is blocking the IP.  When this happens, I use a
sniffer and add the new IP address that Microsoft is using and then it
works, until they change address's again.  Cisco says use the Host
setting allowing requests that end in "update.microsoft.com".  This does
not always work.

I am really at a loss because it works for 95% of the machines but I can
not afford to have 5% of the students in my office when they get back
from the summer.

Any Ideas?

Martin Flagg
Hiram College