Tag Archives: web washer

Web Security Offerings From Cisco: Comparing Cisco NEW CX to IronPort Web Security Appliance WSA

 Web Security Offerings From Cisco: Comparing Cisco NEW CX to IronPort Web Security Appliance WSAToday’s Internet is a dangerous place. Imagine a small village with law and order surrounded by a wall keeping out miles of ungoverned ruthless territory. Most known websites surfed daily by your users make up a small percentage of the total Internet. The remaining 80% or more of uncategorized websites are contaminated with Botnets, malware and short-lived websites targeting your users. Many of these malicious websites are embedded in trusted sites such as social networks by hiding in advertisements or silly links posted by your friends. The best protection for this threat vector is limiting Internet usage to trusted websites and monitoring those websites for malicious applications.

The most common method to protect users while surfing the Internet is leveraging a web security solution. I wrote a post about this HERE. Cisco has two web security flavors, which are a dedicated proxy and application firewall add-on. The dedicated proxy, known as the Web Security Appliance (WSA) came from the acquisition of IronPort. Cisco replaced its content filter module for their ASA firewalls based on McAfee technology with an application aware addition known as CX Context-Aware. There are many overlapping features between the two approaches however there is a clear distinction when to choose one over the other.

Both CX and WSA provide features expected from a web security solution. Both CX and WSA offer the ability to monitor and control what type of websites are available for users based on categories (examples Adult, Hate, Gambling, etc.). Both CX and WSA include reputation controls meaning ability to blacklist known malicious websites (more on reputation HERE). Both CX and WSA can limit or deny traffic types based on user groups such as denying Skype, throttle download speeds and target specific applications (example permitting Facebook while denying Farmsville for employees 9am-5pm). Both solutions can scale beyond the internal network using VPNs to route traffic from remote users.

CX DASHBOARD (click to see larger)

Screen Shot 2012 08 01 at 7.50.08 PM Web Security Offerings From Cisco: Comparing Cisco NEW CX to IronPort Web Security Appliance WSAScreen Shot 2012 08 01 at 7.50.19 PM Web Security Offerings From Cisco: Comparing Cisco NEW CX to IronPort Web Security Appliance WSA

CX Web Categories

Screen Shot 2012 08 01 at 7.51.52 PM Web Security Offerings From Cisco: Comparing Cisco NEW CX to IronPort Web Security Appliance WSA

IronPort WSA Categories

Screen Shot 2012 08 01 at 9.58.33 PM Web Security Offerings From Cisco: Comparing Cisco NEW CX to IronPort Web Security Appliance WSA

WSA Reputation Score Settings

Screen Shot 2012 08 01 at 10.03.40 PM Web Security Offerings From Cisco: Comparing Cisco NEW CX to IronPort Web Security Appliance WSA

Features offered by IronPort not included with CX are focused on what happens after traffic passes reputation and content policies. WSA offers anti-malware scanning licenses for McAfee, Sophos and Webroot for any traffic tagged as “grey” meaning traffic that passes the reputation blacklist but not considered completely trusted or “white-listed”. These signature-based verdict engines are licensed separately and can be stacked to provide a wide range of scanning capability. WSA also offers a dedicated layer 4 Botnet scanner targeting phone home communication from infected machines. These additional features provide more layers of defense beyond common application firewall technologies including Cisco CX.

Some other differences are based on the design and implantation of WSA and CX. The WSA is a dedicated proxy, which can be deployed using host inline proxy settings or directing network traffic to the WSA using WCCP. The CX uses policy maps routing traffic seen by an ASA through the CX addition. WSA includes caching to improve network performance. WSA can direct traffic through a DLP solution adding network based DLP scanning (A possible roadmap is including DLP in the appliance as a add-on license similar to the IronPort Email Security Appliance). Cisco roadmaps show IronPort offerings will include a virtualized option in the near future. Probably the most important CX design consideration is today Cisco ASA 5500X can either leverage CX or IPS however not both simultaneously. CX is also not available on some ASA 5500X models such as 5585-40s and 5585-60s. Expanding CX to other ASA models and dual IPS CX support are roadmap items at this time.

Screen Shot 2012 08 14 at 10.37.48 AM Web Security Offerings From Cisco: Comparing Cisco NEW CX to IronPort Web Security Appliance WSATo summarize, its best to consider Cisco CX for essential web security meaning content filtering and reputation based protection. The CX is also a viable option if you don’t require IPS from your ASA 5500X. WSA is suited for Comprehensive web security meaning content filtering, reputation protection, malware scanning and layer 4 botnet awareness. WSA is also a dedicated proxy providing performance benefits as well as design options such as including Data Loss Prevention. If you desire your ASA to include IPS functionality, today you will need to consider a WSA to handle web security. Hopefully this post helps with distinguishing when to choose CX or IronPort WSA.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 5.0/5 (5 votes cast)

2 Comments

Filed under Internet Defense

Enforcing Network Policy Internally, Remotely And To Mobile Devices

 Enforcing Network Policy Internally, Remotely And To Mobile DevicesMany corporations fail to establish and enforce a network policy. A network policy is a set of conditions, limitations, and customized settings designed to control how authorized subjects use network resources. Common examples of a network policy are controlling access to adult, gambling, hacking, blacklisted and other website categories that violate human resource (HR) and security standards. Network Policy requirements can change based on device type, time of day and user role. Its key that network policy is automatically enforced rather than something end-users choose to abide by or most likely will fail when most needed.

Users are the weakest link in any network. Hackers know this and target the majority of attacks at this vulnerability. I constantly hear customers complain about phishing attacks (users clicking a link in a email) or users bringing devices infected with malware most likely obtained while surfing websites that violate network policy. Its also common to see users violate security controls if it impacts their work flow. I had one audit identify internal users VPNing from their workstations to bypass internal network policy due to lack of controls for remote users. Poorly enforced policies will impact your security, reduce workflow and become very costly as a result of failed audits and compromised systems.

Common solutions for enforcing network policy are layer 7 / application layer firewalls, content filters and bolt-on technology such as cloud applications or agent technology that control network traffic from end-points. I wrote a post about the concepts behind web-gateway solutions HERE. The standard offering provides content categories (Gambling, Social Networks, Hate, Sex, etc.) that can be denied, limited or monitored. The more advanced solutions include security components such as anti-virus / anti-malware, layer-4 monitoring, website reputation scoring and other features.

The problem with these solutions is scalability. Most content filers require either user devices to be configured inline (hardcoding proxy settings) or routing traffic to the device (example WCCP). These solutions become difficult to enforce outside of the internal network as well as on devices that are not cooperate assets such as mobile devices.

ScreenShot2012 06 04at92743PM Enforcing Network Policy Internally, Remotely And To Mobile Devices

(Cisco’s Web-Security Portfolio)

A common solution that addresses external devices is VPNs routing traffic through network policy enforcement solutions (example Cisco AnyConnect with Ironport or ScanSafe). An alternative is using sandbox-based methods such as remotely controlling internal machines (example Citrix). Sandboxes work well however may encourage the wrong user behavior such as emailing information to a g-mail account to bypass the sandbox. One solution I like is Cisco’s OEAP which extends the internal network (including corporate SSIDs) to my home office.ScreenShot2012 06 30at110329PM Enforcing Network Policy Internally, Remotely And To Mobile Devices

Agent and cloud based technology can enforce network policy for laptops and desktops however fail for most mobile device types such as androids and apple devices. The reason is most mobile device manufactures give power to the end-user meaning users can opt out of security (more on this HERE). Some MDM vendors such as Zenprise offer the ability to force network traffic through a VPN tunnel, which is great when devices are managed by a MDM provider but fail when the MDM agent is not present. The only protection that can be applied for mobile devices not using MDM is controlling access to sensitive data through data loss prevention, sandbox sessions or encryption technology. I personally like the MDM enforced by Access Control technology approach.

Network policy can be enforced many ways but must meet your overall business goals and extend to all devices regardless of location. The technology is available however requires investment from leadership to properly build a policy and purchase the necessary tools to enforce it. Most failures in network policy are caused by a lack of focus from leadership.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

1 Comment

Filed under General Security, Host And Mobile Device Security