<?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: Better way to protect the edge in Network Security</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/better-way-to-protect-the-edge/m-p/4785076#M1098269</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Cable at 400Mb&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 01 Mar 2023 14:31:13 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Carl Fitzsimmons</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2023-03-01T14:31:13Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Better way to protect the edge</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/better-way-to-protect-the-edge/m-p/4783461#M1098208</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I have what I thought was going to be relatively easy task. Our syslog server logs more than 20,000 login attempts in 48 hours to log in using a variety of root, admin, administrator and random email accounts. While all have been prevented it may only be a matter of time before they are successful.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The network has an edge router&amp;nbsp;C892FSP-K9 with several port forwarding statements for mail and a few other network services needed outside the office.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I moved ahead taking the logs and converting high occurrence attacks into an ACL and placing that on our edge egress interface a Cisco C892FSP-K9.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;What happens is that we get a short lived benefit and then hammered again from new IPs.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I am rethinking the ACL solution I am currently using which uses a single IP Address DENY statement, one after the other, in an ACL list that is now hundreds of lines in length with at this time no apparent end in sight. I am think that there must be a better way to implement protection. The site does not want to move to an ASA device so I will need to implement using the&amp;nbsp;C892FSP-K9.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;So I am seeking a different way to implement edge security to stop such attacks and looking for some input on how to proceed.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Feb 2023 19:38:15 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/better-way-to-protect-the-edge/m-p/4783461#M1098208</guid>
      <dc:creator>Carl Fitzsimmons</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2023-02-27T19:38:15Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Better way to protect the edge</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/better-way-to-protect-the-edge/m-p/4783499#M1098211</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;&lt;a href="https://community.cisco.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/2441"&gt;@Carl Fitzsimmons&lt;/a&gt; perhaps consider the TCP intercept feature on IOS routers.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;A href="https://content.cisco.com/chapter.sjs?uri=%2Fsearchable%2Fchapter%2Fcontent%2Fen%2Fus%2Ftd%2Fdocs%2Fios-xml%2Fios%2Fsec_data_dos_atprvn%2Fconfiguration%2Fxe-16-10-1%2Fsec-data-dos-atprvn-xe-16-11-1%2Fsec-cfg-tcp-intercpt.html.xml&amp;amp;platform=Cisco%20IOS%20Software&amp;amp;release=IOS%20XE%20Gibraltar%2016.11.x" target="_blank"&gt;https://content.cisco.com/chapter.sjs?uri=%2Fsearchable%2Fchapter%2Fcontent%2Fen%2Fus%2Ftd%2Fdocs%2Fios-xml%2Fios%2Fsec_data_dos_atprvn%2Fconfiguration%2Fxe-16-10-1%2Fsec-data-dos-atprvn-xe-16-11-1%2Fsec-cfg-tcp-intercpt.html.xml&amp;amp;platform=Cisco%20IOS%20Software&amp;amp;release=IOS%20XE%20Gibraltar%2016.11.x&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;A href="https://www.ciscopress.com/articles/article.asp?p=345618&amp;amp;seqNum=3" target="_blank"&gt;https://www.ciscopress.com/articles/article.asp?p=345618&amp;amp;seqNum=3&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;A Zone-Based Firewall (ZBFW) might be better than ACL, but a proper firewall would obviously be better.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Feb 2023 20:41:42 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/better-way-to-protect-the-edge/m-p/4783499#M1098211</guid>
      <dc:creator>Rob Ingram</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2023-02-27T20:41:42Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Better way to protect the edge</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/better-way-to-protect-the-edge/m-p/4783554#M1098212</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;How big is the WAN link?&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Feb 2023 22:37:29 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/better-way-to-protect-the-edge/m-p/4783554#M1098212</guid>
      <dc:creator>Leo Laohoo</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2023-02-27T22:37:29Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Better way to protect the edge</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/better-way-to-protect-the-edge/m-p/4785074#M1098268</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I will check this out&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Mar 2023 14:30:40 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/better-way-to-protect-the-edge/m-p/4785074#M1098268</guid>
      <dc:creator>Carl Fitzsimmons</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2023-03-01T14:30:40Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Better way to protect the edge</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/better-way-to-protect-the-edge/m-p/4785076#M1098269</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Cable at 400Mb&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Mar 2023 14:31:13 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/better-way-to-protect-the-edge/m-p/4785076#M1098269</guid>
      <dc:creator>Carl Fitzsimmons</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2023-03-01T14:31:13Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Better way to protect the edge</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/better-way-to-protect-the-edge/m-p/4785124#M1098272</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I wouldn't chase router security options for this use case. If the business won't sponsor a proper enterprise firewall like a Cisco Secure 1000 series (or Fortinet/Palo Alto etc.) then even pfSense running on Netgate would work ok - and MUCH better than even an expertly tuned router.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;A href="http://www.netgate.com/pfsense-plus-software/how-to-buy" target="_blank"&gt;http://www.netgate.com/pfsense-plus-software/how-to-buy&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Mar 2023 15:29:49 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/better-way-to-protect-the-edge/m-p/4785124#M1098272</guid>
      <dc:creator>Marvin Rhoads</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2023-03-01T15:29:49Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Better way to protect the edge</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/better-way-to-protect-the-edge/m-p/4785317#M1098278</link>
      <description>&lt;BLOCKQUOTE&gt;&lt;HR /&gt;&lt;a href="https://community.cisco.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/2441"&gt;@Carl Fitzsimmons&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;wrote:&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;Cable at 400Mb&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;HR /&gt;&lt;/BLOCKQUOTE&gt;
&lt;P&gt;A puny 89x router will not be able to push beyond 50 Mbps with "vanilla" config.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Mar 2023 22:25:57 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/better-way-to-protect-the-edge/m-p/4785317#M1098278</guid>
      <dc:creator>Leo Laohoo</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2023-03-01T22:25:57Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

