| 1 |
On Tue, 2004-12-07 at 09:46 +1100, Andrew Cowie wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, 2004-06-12 at 20:21 +0000, Casper Gasper wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Monday 06 December 2004 01:10, Haim Ashkenazi wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > I'm trying to configure apache2 as a reverse proxy for an exchange |
| 5 |
> > > server that has internal address. I know it's a bad idea, |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > Bad idea? Why? I think if you set it up properly it's a very good way of |
| 8 |
> > securing Outlook Web Access. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> You can't secure Exchange's "Outlook Web Access" by sticking it behind |
| 11 |
> an Apache reverse proxy for a few reasons: |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> 1) OWA will still be running in Internet Information Server, which is |
| 14 |
> buggy and ridden with security holes. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> 2) OWA, like every other web application, is liable to attacks that |
| 17 |
> target some weakness in its design at the application level, as opposed |
| 18 |
> to targetting vulnerabilities in the host web server. SQL injection type |
| 19 |
> attacks are the poster-children here, but there are many others. A proxy |
| 20 |
> (or firewall, for that matter) will not help you because such things are |
| 21 |
> conveyed as legitimate web requests. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> What you will get, however, is protection against: |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> 3) any attack that would crash IIS that doesn't crash Apache which isn't |
| 26 |
> proxied through *by* Apache will then be averted. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> Not much of a gain given (1) and (2), but probably still worth the |
| 29 |
> effort. |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> We did do the proxy thing (and, stuck Qmail as MX in front of Exchange) |
| 32 |
> at a previous site on the grounds that something is better than nothing, |
| 33 |
> but have no illusion that you are now "secure" as a result. |
| 34 |
I agree with what you say. my options were VPN or proxy. the problem I |
| 35 |
had with VPN is that this company doesn't have a system administrator, |
| 36 |
and doesn't give much thought about security. VPN could be much worse |
| 37 |
then web access if someone breaks to one of the laptops and access the |
| 38 |
network from there. with reverse proxy (and an access password in apache |
| 39 |
I thought it would be a little less risky. (well at least if I'll be |
| 40 |
able to make it work...). |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
Bye |
| 43 |
-- |
| 44 |
Haim |
Archives