Re: Managed services provider question

["Pete, Andrew" <000000d06e28c017-dmarc-request () LISTSERV EDUCAUSE EDU>]

Hey Tom,

To clarify, they only want us to move our TACACS authentication (used for network management like routers, switches, 
wireless controllers, etc) to their platform.  Other systems like the ones you mentioned below would not be changing.

We ultimately think this is a bad idea as it would mean that authentication would be off premise and we would have very 
limited control over it.

Andy

From: The EDUCAUSE Security Community Group Listserv <SECURITY () LISTSERV EDUCAUSE EDU> On Behalf Of Tom Miller
Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2019 4:18 PM
To: SECURITY () LISTSERV EDUCAUSE EDU
Subject: Re: [SECURITY] Managed services provider question


This message originated outside of New England Institute of Technology. Use caution when opening attachments, clicking 
links or responding to requests for information.
Andrew,

To be sure I understand, are you stating that the MSP expects you to use the MSP's director (AD, whatever) for 
authentication, even with your third-party connectors (Banner, Google, Office 365, AWS, etc.)?  I might not be properly 
understanding.

If your answer is yes, that's a big change to move from the current model (yours and controlled by you) to an MSP's 
platform.  I had a previous role in an MSP similar to yours, and we never used that model:  our authentication model 
was for our systems only, and we had accounts on customer's platforms.  I can see how your MSP wants to move to that 
model:  easier for the MSP to manage their staff accounts, easier to manage client account.  But, this is a clever way 
for an MSP to make you heavily dependent on the MSP and exaction from the MSP could be quite a challenge.  You might 
want to review your contracts with your connected partners to see if there would be any issues.

If you go this route, I would ask to speak with other MSP customers who went with this model and ensure you have good 
protections in a contract.

On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 1:40 PM Pete, Andrew <000000d06e28c017-dmarc-request () listserv educause 
edu<mailto:000000d06e28c017-dmarc-request () listserv educause edu>> wrote:
Hi All,

I wanted to get some opinions on a discussion we are currently having with our managed service provider.  We are a 
smaller department and rely on an MSP for monitoring/alerting.  In addition to monitoring, we recently decided to have 
them co-manage our critical infrastructure so that we can lean on them to back us up in the event we need more man 
power or need assistance with major issues.  Our MSP was bought in the last year or so and with our renewal, they are 
moving us to a new managed service platform and structure.  As part of this process, the MSP has insisted that we have 
to move from our TACACS infrastructure to theirs.  We do not see this as a good move for our organization and this 
discussion is holding up the process of them onboarding all of our necessary infrastructure so they can provide us with 
services.  The MSP has continued to push the issue only citing that it is how they do things as to why we have to 
switch.  We finally got a little more of an explanation from them as to why we need to move to their TACACS.  Below is 
what they gave us with any org names removed.

Advantages
•             Centralized, standardized, and auditable repository of access controls
•             Included in the service (we do the work)
•             Security wrapper

Risks
•             Security.  MSP will have no control over access, but instead be subject to customer’s policy/procedures
•             Maintenance -  MSP cannot manage a device it does not have access to.
•             Human Error -  customer will be the only customer of roughly 300 who procured MSP management, but owns 
TACACs

Protections for MSP
•             SOW modifications to protect MSP against any security breach damage
•             SOW modifications to protect MSP against SLA violations on those devices
•             Additional hours to modify procedures for change management; continuous updates

We discussed their response internally and many of the things they list would be exactly the same or similar regardless 
of switching to their TACACS or continuing to use ours.  We even are going back to them that we want them to co-manage 
our TACACS server as part of the MSP agreement to ensure they have the ability to support our TACACS infrastructure.

I’m curious if anyone out there has ever seen this type of request out of a MSP.  Even if not, I’d love some input on 
the matter.

I have worked for about 7 years for two different MSPs doing both managed services and professional services for many 
customers.  In my role, I also did some sub work for a few other MSP/PS companies.  In all those cases, I have not run 
across a MSP that requires the use of their own authentication infrastructure for a co-managed network.

Thanks,

Andrew Pete
Information Security Architect

New England Institute of Technology
One New England Tech Boulevard
East Greenwich, RI 02818-1205
401-780-4460 (Direct)
apete () neit edu<mailto:apete () neit edu>

[NEIT_Full_Stack_H_White_BG_PNG1]




--
Tom Miller, MBA
Internal IT Auditor
Christopher Newport University
1 Avenue of the Arts
Newport News, VA  23606-3072
Phone:  757-594-8610
E-mail:  thomas.miller () cnu edu<mailto:thomas.miller () cnu edu>