IDS mailing list archives

Re: IDS deployment outside FW?


From: Dr Bit Bucket <drbitbucket () comcast net>
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 18:54:28 -0600

Chris,

If all possible, your IDS sensors should never be active on the network that they are monitoring (unless you're doing some sort of active response, such as with an IPS solution). Have the management interface on a private network exclusive to security functions and not assign an IP address to the monitored interface(s). By not having the management interface on this non-routable network, you mitigate the issues with dual-homed hosts. If you use passive network taps, that's even better. 100TX taps are $355 a pop these days (netoptics, with send/receive split into two RJ-45 interfaces. Under Linux use channel bonding to recombine the traffic into a virtual interface and direct the IDS to that interface), while 1000SX taps are $550 each (the receiving NICs are equally expensive for fiber and a quad 100TX card runs about $400). Pretty cheap and far better than spanning ports (in terms of packet drops during peak volume).

To deal with the extra noise, the main focus of a sensor out there is to monitor attacks against your perimeter devices. You should be able to craft the monitoring rules to focus on those devices. If there are other benefits to monitoring in that location, I'd like to hear from others on the list.

Jon Repaci
GCIA, CISSP

At 7:33 PM +0000 8/9/04, Chris Conacher wrote:
Dear List

I have moved into an organization that has two RealSecure Network Sensors and a network architecture that is VLANd/DMZd to where localized deployment to capture traffic would require 8 to 12 sensors to avoid bridging loops.

The cheapest/simplest option (without deploying SNORT/Prelude, etc - the organization wants to remain on a single application architecture where possible) is to place the two sensors outside of the firewall.

I understand that this means:
The sensors will be in hostile territory and need to be maintained to a very high degree There will be an operations overhead of dealing with all of the noise that would normally be filtered by a firewall

Does anyone have experience of doing this?
Are there any other issues that I have not considered?

Chris

_________________________________________________________________
It's fast, it's easy and it's free. Get MSN Messenger today! http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Test Your IDS

Is your IDS deployed correctly?
Find out quickly and easily by testing it with real-world attacks from CORE
IMPACT.
Go to http://www.securityfocus.com/sponsor/CoreSecurity_focus-ids_040708 to learn more.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Test Your IDS

Is your IDS deployed correctly?
Find out quickly and easily by testing it with real-world attacks from CORE
IMPACT.
Go to http://www.securityfocus.com/sponsor/CoreSecurity_focus-ids_040708 to learn more.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------


Current thread: