As part of Cisco's Self-Defending Network Initiave Cisco has announced a
new product which relies on "the Cisco Network Admission Control program
is innovative software developed by Cisco called the Cisco Trust Agent
which resides on an endpoint system and communicates with the Cisco
network. The Cisco Trust Agent collects security state information from
multiple security software clients, such as anti-virus clients, and
communicates this information to the connected Cisco network where access
control decisions are made and enforced. Cisco has licensed its Cisco
Trust Agent technology to Network Associates, Symantec and Trend Micro so
it can be integrated with their security software client products."
Currently the Cisco NAC software only works with Cisco network equipment
and Microsoft Windows NT, XP and 2000 operating systems.
Without the secret handshake Mac OS, Linux, Solaris and other operating
systems will not be able to connect to a Cisco Self-Defending Network
which limits its usefullness for ISPs.
Pretty much limits it's usefulness for everyone else too.
I've yet to visit an enterprise that didn't have a couple of Macs or Linux
boxes somewhere.
Of course Windows is where the problem is so if you could set this up
to globally permit Apple/Sun etc. mac addresses, you'd be part way there.
A *nix without a secret handshake is like a fish without a bicycle.
Yes, viruses *are* theoretically possible on these platforms, but let's
be honest here - even if you included all of the platforms, you'd only
intercept another 1% or so viruses, tops.
At worst, you have to run another network segment to connect all the
machines that are able to defend themselves without assistance.
Well, if you let systems on the network without the secret handshake,
what's to stop people from connecting Windows boxes with the "security"
software disabled so it doesn't answer the "I'm Infected" question? Or
the next virus can take over the Cisco secret handshake port and always
answer "I'm Ok" when ever the network asks it a question.
How does the Self-Protecting Network tell the difference between a
non-infected Mac or Unix machine from a Typhod Mary Windows bo if you are
depending on software on the system to answer the question?
Yes, some level of security works when every obeys the rules. But the
current problem ISPs have is not everyone obeys the rules.
Sean Donelan wrote:
> > Without the secret handshake Mac OS, Linux, Solaris and other operating
> > systems will not be able to connect to a Cisco Self-Defending Network
> > which limits its usefullness for ISPs.
>
> A *nix without a secret handshake is like a fish without a bicycle.
>
> Yes, viruses *are* theoretically possible on these platforms, but let's
> be honest here - even if you included all of the platforms, you'd only
> intercept another 1% or so viruses, tops.
Well, if you let systems on the network without the secret handshake,
what's to stop people from connecting Windows boxes with the "security"
software disabled so it doesn't answer the "I'm Infected" question? Or
the next virus can take over the Cisco secret handshake port and always
answer "I'm Ok" when ever the network asks it a question.
How does the Self-Protecting Network tell the difference between a
non-infected Mac or Unix machine from a Typhod Mary Windows bo if you are
depending on software on the system to answer the question?
Yes, some level of security works when every obeys the rules. But the
current problem ISPs have is not everyone obeys the rules.
Or maybe the problem is yet another single-vendor impostion of a
"global" protocol standard.
This looks suspiciously similar to the solution Nokia announced a few weeks ago, though
it was based on a java application, not sure how platform dependent it was.
Pete
Sean Donelan wrote:
According to the marketing folk, "it's a phased approach". This translates to two things:
1. There is a plan for an open API.
2. *NIX is not where the problem lies, right now.
Eliot