nanog mailing list archives

Re: WaPo writes about vulnerabilities in Supermicro IPMIs


From: Jonathan Lassoff <jof () thejof com>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 19:56:36 -0700

The primary point of IPMI for most users is to be able to administer and
control the box when it's not running.
Using the host itself as a firewall is the quickest way to get that BMC
online, but it kinda defeats the purpose.


On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 7:46 PM, Jay Ashworth <jra () baylink com> wrote:

----- Original Message -----
From: "Brandon Martin" <lists.nanog () monmotha net>

As to why people wouldn't put them behind dedicated firewalls, imagine
something like a single-server colo scenario. Most such providers don't
offer any form of lights-out management aside from maybe remote reboot
(power-cycle) nor do they offer any form of protected/secondary network
to their customers. So, if you want to save yourself from a trip, you
chuck the thing raw on a public IP and hope you configured it right.

Well, *I* would firewall eth1 from eth0 and cross-over eth1 to the ILO
jack;
let the box be the firewall.  Sure, it's still as breakable as the box
proper, but security-by-obscurity isn't *bad*, it's just *not good enough*.

It's another layer of tape.

Whether it's teflon or Gorilla is up to you.

Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth                  Baylink
jra () baylink com
Designer                     The Things I Think                       RFC
2100
Ashworth & Associates     http://baylink.pitas.com         2000 Land
Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA               #natog                      +1 727 647
1274




Current thread: