Re: [Int-area] [v6ops] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gont-opsawg-firewalls-analysis-01.txt

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Rick,

Thanks so much for your feedback! Please find my responses in-line...

On 10/16/2015 09:19 AM, Rick Casarez wrote:
> While I get amused reading such things are we sure we need lines like
> this in the document?
> 
> "...and attempts to end the bickering on the topic, which is, for the
> most part, of little value in illuminating the discussion."
> 
> A few parts of the introduction I think can be re-worded to express the
> issues professionally without getting people defensive by making the
> statements you are making. Rise above it.

I'll re-check the text -- The Intro was going to be re-worked, anyway.



> In Section 2:
> 
> Firewall - I am wondering if a better definition can be made. From what
> you wrote I cannot distinguish between a Firewall and an ACL. 

An ACL is a policy. A firewall is a device that enforces filtering policies.


> No mention
> of state tracking for instance etc.

Ok, will try to add somethin in this respect.



> Defense-in-depth - I think you should define this term in this section
> since you go on to use it in following sections.

Will do.



> Section 3.3:
> 
> The sentence:
> 
> "By that line of reasoning, a firewall primarily protects
> infrastructure, by preventing traffic that would attack it from it."
> 
> I think flows better as:
> 
> "By that line of reasoning, a firewall primarily protects
> infrastructure, by preventing traffic that would attack it."
> 
> or
> 
> "A firewall primarily protects against infrastructure attacks."

This seond option my work. (Your first option changes the meaning of the
sentence).



> Section 5.1:
> 
> "The drawback of this approach is that the security goal of "block
> traffic unless it is explicitly allowed" prevents useful new applications."
> 
> I am not sure I understand this line. It blocks new applications from
> immediately traversing the firewall. I know from experience though that
> when a discussion is had with the NetSec team the application can be
> added to the allow list. So not sure a "default deny" means new stuff
> never gets allowed as the text insinuates.

Well, that depends on where the firewall is being deployed, and if it is
actively managed.



> Section 6:
> 
> There are temporary IPv4 addresses too.

Not by definition I'd say. Or... would you mind elaborating a bit more
in this respect?



> As for application being tunneled over well-known ports that sounds like
> a breakdown of communication between the Service Owners and NetSec.
> Simple communication *should* lead to the creation of a profile for that
> new application and its individual port. By doing what you describe it
> sounds like a Service Owner trying to get out of doing due diligence
> with NetSec or not knowing what port their application needs for access
> (More common than you might think).

Yes. Or, at times, a user/app trying to circumvent unmanaged firewalls.
-- Ironically, at times these protocols are referred to as "firewall
friendly".

Thanks!

Best regards,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492