<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: Posture for VPN Users in Network Access Control</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/posture-for-vpn-users/m-p/4011315#M454609</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi Mike thanks for the responses.&amp;nbsp; That's how we are going to have to proceed.&amp;nbsp; Different tunnel groups are the best way to solve this.&amp;nbsp; Thanks again.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Sam&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 14 Jan 2020 16:03:10 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>scamarda</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2020-01-14T16:03:10Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Posture for VPN Users</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/posture-for-vpn-users/m-p/4009416#M454592</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Looking for creative ideas.&amp;nbsp; I have a customer with ASA/AnyConnect/Hostscan.&amp;nbsp; They are looking for ISE to replace Hostscan.&amp;nbsp; With Host Scan, the customer has one tunnel-group with two types of users connecting.&amp;nbsp; 1) Corp User with Corp Device, 2) Corp User with Personal Device.&amp;nbsp; They also check for AV.&amp;nbsp; Authentication is done via username/password.&amp;nbsp; Customer not interested in Cert Auth. This all works but client ends up in a non compliant state and is indicated this in the AnyConnect client status.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;With ISE and password auth, to check for Corp Device, I have to do via Posture since I don't believe I anything else to identify if it as a Corp asset in the authentication/authorization part. I know I can manipulate MAC address but that is not scalable for the customer.&amp;nbsp; I can do this via Tunnel Group isolation but the customer is not wanting to have multiple tunnel groups.&amp;nbsp; Hostscan is able to combine the corp asset registry check in as part of the session initiation.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;I could use device name but I don't see that as a visible attribute in the live log summary.Are there any other ways to validate corp asset status in the Authorization phase?&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Jan 2020 13:54:47 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/posture-for-vpn-users/m-p/4009416#M454592</guid>
      <dc:creator>scamarda</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-01-10T13:54:47Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Posture for VPN Users</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/posture-for-vpn-users/m-p/4009424#M454599</link>
      <description>IMO you have a couple of options:&lt;BR /&gt;1- Add a profiled endpoint L2 group in your authz condition that is a bucket for corporate assets based on several conditions of your choice. The one of interest for this topic would be the AD-Host-Exists:EQUALS=true; Downside with this is the customer will need plus licenses on top of the base since you would be pushing authz policy based on profiled groups.&lt;BR /&gt;2- Rely on posture module and checks to scan registry to ensure host is a member of your domain. Check for reg key:&lt;BR /&gt;HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Group Policy\History\MachineDomain &amp;lt;yourdomain&amp;gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Jan 2020 14:07:31 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/posture-for-vpn-users/m-p/4009424#M454599</guid>
      <dc:creator>Mike.Cifelli</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-01-10T14:07:31Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Posture for VPN Users</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/posture-for-vpn-users/m-p/4010120#M454602</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Thanks for the reply.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;For option 1 - That will not work because the user is coming in via VPN.&amp;nbsp; I can only check user, cannot check machine.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;For option 2 - I can use posture to validate, but personal machines not connected to the domain will fail the check, thus get 'Not Compliant" status.&amp;nbsp; I know that Not Compliant access can be anything I want it to be but the AnyConnect Posture Status will show "Not Compliant".&amp;nbsp; That will prob cause user confusion and be a management hassle.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 12 Jan 2020 16:22:45 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/posture-for-vpn-users/m-p/4010120#M454602</guid>
      <dc:creator>scamarda</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-01-12T16:22:45Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Posture for VPN Users</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/posture-for-vpn-users/m-p/4010498#M454606</link>
      <description>What about separating the two and setting up separate Posture policy checks for each use case?  You can accomplish this via referencing the tunnel-group name under Other Conditions.  Then identify what checks you wish to perform for each use case.  Doing it this way you should be able to avoid a corp user with personal device seeing 'non-compliant'.  HTH!</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 13 Jan 2020 14:25:04 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/posture-for-vpn-users/m-p/4010498#M454606</guid>
      <dc:creator>Mike.Cifelli</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-01-13T14:25:04Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Posture for VPN Users</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/posture-for-vpn-users/m-p/4011315#M454609</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi Mike thanks for the responses.&amp;nbsp; That's how we are going to have to proceed.&amp;nbsp; Different tunnel groups are the best way to solve this.&amp;nbsp; Thanks again.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Sam&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Jan 2020 16:03:10 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/posture-for-vpn-users/m-p/4011315#M454609</guid>
      <dc:creator>scamarda</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-01-14T16:03:10Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

