IDS mailing list archives
Re: ASIC-based vs. Software-based Security Platform
From: Mark Teicher <mht3 () earthlink net>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 22:09:42 -0600
At 09:17 PM 8/26/2003, Ron Gula wrote: At 05:29 PM 8/26/2003 -0400, Klaus, Chris (ISSAtlanta) wrote:
Several security companies have been touting that ASIC (Application Specific Integrated Circuit) hardware-based appliances are the future of network security. I put together a whitepaper that compares ASIC-based and software-based security platforms, especially as they relate to IDS and the future direction of IDS. The security whitepaper is available at:http://www.issadvisor.com/viewtopic.php?t=368 Like to get feedback and comments on the whitepaper.
[*] Security Convergence When I worked for Enterasys, we had customers who would have died for a device that did IDS, VPN, firewall, SSL acceleration, virus, VOIP, conent filtering etc. all in one box at a cheap price. The closest thing I've seen to this is Fortinet. I can't say it's NIDS is as good as Snort, ISS or whatever, but I can say if I had to deploy several hundred of these things all over the world, I'd rather go with one device than deploy several hundred of each type of network device.<mht> I evaluated the Fortinet appliance, it has a little piece of everything, nice UI, but not great content filtering or logging, The IDS signatures are not the greatest and not easily configurable. It can be overwhelmed with logging and thus rendered unusable. It is a nice NextGen Netscreen 5 appliance. I would write more, but I don't want the listeners who work for Fortinet to perk up and start taking what I write seriously.
For big gateways, I want a sophisticated firewall and IDS watching over things, but most people don't have the resources to take that same technology and deploy it throughout their infrastructure.<mht> Do you mean an In-line IDS on both the external perimeter and internal perimeter. The Intruvert IDS box has 3 ports to monitor such a configuration.
[*] Application Proxies I agree with you that many folks are tired of slow firewalls with application proxies, but I don't agree that this has to be done in software. There are plenty of hardware based app proxies being sold right now.<mht> Plenty of hardware based apps proxies being sold, but not the greatest in handling SAP applications or Java based applications, if you let 80 through, you basically bypass everything anyways..
[*] Security Blades I agree it's easier to re-deploy software than to re-deploy new ASICs, however, there is a LOT of resistance to put anything with a hard drive, fan or other moving part into an important router or switch. I really don't want my routers running SQL, Apache, IIS, etc.<mht> Cisco tried this with the 6501 and still couldn't keep up with the competition, to much overhead in processing frames, not enough on the coalescining(sp?) side of the product. It kept on logging similiar attacks as unique attacks and flooded the boxes with logs..
[*] Foundation Engine Yep. If someone takes firewall code, and bolts on some pattern matching, they don't have an enterprise-class IDS. On the other hand, I like that my $35 Dlink WAP will do content filtering and alert me for basic port scans. If someone does design a security platform from scratch though and they use ASICs, they can get around a lot of these issues.<mht> Of course, you mean GOOD firewall code, and Enterprise ready appliances, which of course is another category in itself.
[*] Security Flaws You are right that both ASIC based and software based solutions can have security flaws, but its much more likely that a software solution which relies on SQL, IIS, Apache, etc. will get hit than an ASIC with some sort of proprietary management scheme. I think the ASIC vendors (Intruvert, Fortinet, etc.) have a valid point when they claim that most IDS boxes are typically some of the *worse* maintained security devices on the network.<mht> VxWorks is a good base to start with, but one still has to figure out how to upgrade the firmware without introducing new flaws, as I just had the same conversation with NAI a few weeks ago regarding how they introduce firmware upgrades to a box not connected to the Internet. Their assumption is that the box has a direct connection out.
[*] Performance I have a hard time with some of your arguments, mostly because I think that performance has nothing to do with the relevancy of ASICs vs. software. If you put software on fast chips, it may run faster.<mht> Performance is all in the design, if you design and code correctly, performance is eliminated from the equation, but everyone claims performance numbers from outside vendors, and that is a whole other argument
Of course in any particular test, with any particular build, some NIDS will see things, and some NIDS wont. To pick that NetScreen was dropping some packets, and that ISS was working well at 1 G/b is misleading. I've spent a lot of time with different NIDS since I left Enterasys, and all of these guys do things very different and have many different strengths and weaknesses. Each NIDS engineering team always feels that the test didn't show their best features and performance.<mht>I agree, each NIDS has its strenghs and weaknesses, using a layered approach in a security architecture is the only way to find out.
One thing I do belive though is that the race to get to 1 Gb performance for a NIDS was the wrong race. The industry should have been building integrated and cheap T1, DSL and T3 devices. <mht> What about OC-12, or OC-48.. ?? [*] Manufacturing Costs I strongly disagree here. If this were the case, all of the routers and switches would be running on NT dell servers.<mht>I agree with Chris, is that manufacturing costs do matter, remember WatchGuard.. ??
----- Good paper. Obviously I disagree with some of what you say, but I think that anyone participating in the buying cycle of an ASIC based vs. software based NIDS or integrated security device should read it.<mht>It is an GOOD paper, it needs some work on delivering the punch and driving the outlined points home to a decision maker/purchaser.. :)
Ron Gula, CTO Tenable Network Security http://www.tenablesecurity.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------Attend Black Hat Briefings & Training Federal, September 29-30 (Training), October 1-2 (Briefings) in Tysons Corner, VA; the worldÂ's premier technical IT security event. Modeled after the famous Black Hat event in Las Vegas! 6 tracks, 12 training sessions, top speakers and sponsors. Symanetc is the Diamond sponsor. Early-bird registration ends September 6 Visit: www.blackhat.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------Attend Black Hat Briefings & Training Federal, September 29-30 (Training), October 1-2 (Briefings) in Tysons Corner, VA; the worldÂs premier technical IT security event. Modeled after the famous Black Hat event in Las Vegas! 6 tracks, 12 training sessions, top speakers and sponsors. Symanetc is the Diamond sponsor. Early-bird registration ends September 6 Visit: www.blackhat.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current thread:
- ASIC-based vs. Software-based Security Platform Klaus, Chris (ISSAtlanta) (Aug 26)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: ASIC-based vs. Software-based Security Platform Ron Gula (Aug 26)
- Re: ASIC-based vs. Software-based Security Platform Shaiful (Aug 27)
- Re: ASIC-based vs. Software-based Security Platform Ron Gula (Aug 27)
- Re: ASIC-based vs. Software-based Security Platform Shaiful (Aug 27)
- Re: ASIC-based vs. Software-based Security Platform Mark Teicher (Aug 27)
