Educause Security Discussion mailing list archives
Re: Managed services provider question
From: Mac McGaughy <jmcgaug1 () UNCC EDU>
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2019 12:33:24 -0400
I would say it's completely up to your organization, as you are the customer. If you have the ability to send them authentication logs, and they can alert you to take action on your own this should be sufficient. It really depends on how much of a hands off approach you want. ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------------- Jessie McGaughy | CISSP-ISSAP <https://www.isc2.org/Certifications/CISSP>, CISSP, <https://www.isc2.org/Certifications/CISSP> CCSP <https://www.isc2.org/Certifications/CCSP>, PMP <https://www.pmi.org/certifications/types/project-management-pmp>, C|EH <https://www.eccouncil.org/programs/certified-ethical-hacker-ceh/>, ITIL <https://www.axelos.com/best-practice-solutions/itil> Information Security Manager UNC Charlotte | Kennedy Bldg 330B 9201 University City Blvd | Charlotte, NC 28223 jmcgaug1 () uncc edu <jbeauman () uncc edu> | Phone: 704-687-8548 itservices.uncc.edu ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------------- If you are not the intended recipient of this transmission or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution, or other use of any of the information in this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify me immediately by reply e-mail or by telephone. Thank you. On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 9:19 AM Pete, Andrew < 000000d06e28c017-dmarc-request () listserv educause edu> wrote:
Thanks Tom. I 100 percent agree that this type of request is unusual. Luckily our MSP finally conceded to us and will not make us move to their TACACS service. The infrastructure as a service is out there with at least a few other MSPs today so it has started to take off. Definitely a nice model for smaller orgs like you pointed out. *From:* The EDUCAUSE Security Community Group Listserv < SECURITY () LISTSERV EDUCAUSE EDU> *On Behalf Of *Tom Miller *Sent:* Thursday, June 13, 2019 8:50 AM *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.* I understand. I still seems to me unusual and we never did that at the MSP I worked for. One challenge you would have is that you would not know their controls. Does your contract have a right to audit clause? Might be something to consider if you go that route, and maybe inquire with other MSPs what they do. I like the idea of outsourcing things like network management/assistance when you can't afford or don't need a full time network engineer, but moving to another authentication is something different. It would seem that you'd also need some sort of firewall rules to allow traffic for authentication. Perhaps you could have some sort of sub domain in your org where management is shared but you own and your vendor could have control over that? I don't think I'd go that route either, at least until I interviewed other customers and the vendor provided plans for incident response, disaster recovery, and possible de-coupling if you terminate the contract. Your team should retain full control of the devices since you own them. There is another model that we were developing when I was with my MSP: the MSP owns the equipment, manages it 100%, and the client pays a lease fee. The MSP would be responsible for replacement. I left before any proposals of that went to clients. I thought it was an interesting concept for small to mid size organizations looking to have a lighter hardware ownership footprint. it could be gradually implemented as a client's aging hardware was replaced. Maybe counter-propose that to your MSP and see what they say? Tom On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 4:24 PM Pete, Andrew < 000000d06e28c017-dmarc-request () listserv educause edu> wrote: 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> 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 *[image: 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 -- 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
********** Replies to EDUCAUSE Community Group emails are sent to the entire community list. If you want to reply only to the person who sent the message, copy and paste their email address and forward the email reply. Additional participation and subscription information can be found at https://www.educause.edu/community
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Current thread:
- Re: Managed services provider question Mac McGaughy (Sep 13)