Internet2
Site Index | Internet2 Searchlight |
Membership | Communities | Services | Projects | Tools | Events | Newsroom | About
 | Home

APPLICATIONS
>FAQ
>Apps 201
>Publications
>Presentations
>Archive
Initiatives
>Internet2 Commons
>Health Sciences
>Arts & Humanities
>Science & Engineering
ACTIVITIES
>Demos
>Loaner Equipment
>Internet2 Days

Contact us
>via email or call   734.913.4250
>Join Our Mailing List
>Apps Webmaster
Click Here for Survey Results!

Security at Line Speed Workshop
Attendee Survey



Introduction

Two difficult and seemingly contradictory imperatives are facing research university networking: the need to enhance local network security in the face of increased local, regional and nationwide cyberprotection needs, and the requirement to support deployment of high-performance, advanced network services for campus researchers using distributed computing environments. The Security at Line Speed Workshop seeks to identify the requirements, architectures, and best practices needed to guide future network deployments for the research community.

Because completing this survey is important for gathering the baseline data and opinions that will not only help direct the workshop, but also influence the outcome and deliverables, we have extended the deadline for completing the survey to July 20. If you plan to attend the workshop, please complete the survey by then and submit it to Charles Yun <charles@internet2.edu>.


Context

An Research and Education enterprise needing very high performance network connectivity, and including very diverse teaching/research/clinical activities.

Problem:
Identify key network architecture principles that will:

a) ensure preservation of the End to End (E2E) or "network utility" model but...
b) also allow for adequate local/departmental security policies, including "defense in depth" strategies,
c) support advanced services such as IP multicast and IPv6.


Requirements/Constraints:

- recognize changing nature of threats (e.g., tunneling, encryption) necessity of dealing with "insider attack" threat
- manageability with minimum staff (simplicity)
- ever-increasing network speeds and application demands
- avoid inhibiting innovative applications, e.g., using P2P
- recognize that some applications/users may legitimately require less security and more flexibility (e.g., applications that may require random ports to be open from time to time).


Survey Instrument


Basic information:
Name:
Title:
Institution:
Email Address:


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUESTION 1:

Do you agree with the above problem and constraint statements? if not, how would you change it?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the questions 2 through 5, please indicate your reaction to the following propositions, where Strongly Disagree=1 and Strongly Agree=5:

QUESTION 2:

Having border routers connected to very-high-speed links stop and strip-search each packet for security purposes is not a viable long-term strategy because of performance, complexity, and support concerns, plus the changing nature of threats.

Strongly Disagree Agree
1 2 3 4 5

QUESTION 3:

It is necessary to provide an enterprise VPN server for remote access.

Strongly Disagree Agree
1 2 3 4 5

QUESTION 4:

VLANs are an essential tool for isolating sensitive resources from the Internet, or grouping resources into security policy equivalence classes.

S trongly Disagree Agree
1 2 3 4 5

QUESTION 5:

Private addresses are an essential tool for isolating sensitive resources from the Internet, or grouping resources into security policy equivalence classes.

Strongly Disagree Agree
1 2 3 4 5

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUESTION 6:

Please rank the importance of the following "defense-in- depth" security elements:

o End-point hardening

-(centrally-managed) software configuration control
-(centrally-managed) end-point firewalls
-Proactive vulnerability probing

o Intrusion Detection Systems (IDS)

o Intrusion Prevention System (IPS = IDS + realtime automatic blocking)

o Isolation (separate fiber, or VLANs, or private addresses)

o Perimeter firewalls


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUESTION 7:

Perimeter Defense firewalls are important at which of the following places in a network topology?
(Select all that apply)

- border
- subnet
- end-point
- other (please specify)
- none of the above

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUESTION 8:

Please rank the following traffic isolation tools in terms of importance (1=most important, 5=least important)

_____ VLANs
_____ Private addresses
_____ Private fiber
_____ IPSEC (or other VPN)
_____ other (please specify)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUESTION 9:

Please put an X next to the following "Middle-vs-Edge" Premises with which you agree:

_____ Less and less network traffic is amenable to inferring the service/application type by observing the IP port number.

_____ Faster pipes make it harder to examine each packet.

_____ More sophisticated attacks using random/dynamic ports will make it harder to do any border port filtering.

_____ Use of encryption (by both good guys and bad guys) will make perimeter firewalls ever less effective.

_____ It's more important to be able to examine traffic within perimeter firewalls than to have end-to-end encryption.

_____ Tunneling traffic thru port 80 is on the increase, and lessens the value of perimeter firewalls.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUESTION 10:

Please rate the desirability of the following Alternative Futures in terms of desirability (1=most desireable, 10=least desireable):

_____ Only port 80 and port 500 are ever open.

_____ Packet switching is dead; circuit switching (via personal lambdas) will be touted as a "white list" driven security solution.

_____ Network utility model dies a horrible death, and no two ports behave the same due to security and bandwidth management policies.

_____ Network utility model survives (wherein all ports behave the same) but only in the context of directory enabled networking (DEN), where connectivity is based on per-session directory lookup for each authenticated user.

_____ NAT turns out to be a pervasive feature instead of a bug.

_____ Vendors begin to ship net-safe systems.

_____ We figure out how to do "selective isolation" in a more innovative way.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open-ended questions:


QUESTION 11:

In the context of network operational support, would you rather live with private addresses and NAT boxes, or firewalls that you don't control sprinkled throughout your network infrastructure? Why?

QUESTION 12:

How would your approach to security be different with additional resources? Please describe the amount/type of resources required, the changes these resources would support.

QUESTION 13:

How would your approach to security be different with fewer resources?

QUESTION 14:

Please provide a brief statement of best architectural principles to solve the goal/constraint set listed at the outset of this document, or your modified statement of the problem.

 

QUESTION 15:

Please describe your strategy for accommodating users and applications which have network requirements that don't fit well with your security model.



Click Here for Survey Results!

© 1996 - 2008 Internet2 - All rights reserved | Terms of Use | Privacy | Contact Us
1000 Oakbrook Drive, Suite 300, Ann Arbor MI 48104 | Phone: +1-734-913-4250