<?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: Is FTD’s control plane wide open? in Network Security</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/is-ftd-s-control-plane-wide-open/m-p/5016175#M1109015</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;As &lt;a href="https://community.cisco.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/97036"&gt;@Rob Ingram&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href="https://community.cisco.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/1065752"&gt;@MHM Cisco World&lt;/a&gt; mentioned, you can use "access-group &amp;lt;name&amp;gt; in int outside control-plane" to control who can access TCP/179. Obviously, it is practically impossible to do the same for TCP/443, although technically control-plane ACLs do work for TCP/443 too. This means that TCP/443 is wide open and the firewall doesn't have protection for TCP/443.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Also, if you, for example, try to rate-limit TCP/443 messages to protect device from DoS, you'd find that none of ASA features work:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;- "class-map type management" doesn't allow you to limit connections or embryonic connections per-host in the corresponding policy-map&lt;BR /&gt;- "class" and "member" constructs do not limit to-the-box connections in case of multiple context mode (on ASA), hence "limit-resource rate" doesn't work too (this tool is unavailable on FTD as it doesn't support multiple mode)&lt;BR /&gt;- MPF is not capable of connection rate-limiting at all.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;HTH&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Sun, 11 Feb 2024 15:40:37 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>tvotna</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2024-02-11T15:40:37Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Is FTD’s control plane wide open?</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/is-ftd-s-control-plane-wide-open/m-p/5016141#M1109002</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I was looking into setting up BGP on an ftd and was wondering where to allow TCP179 and then I realized there is nowhere to even add this as an access entry. Same goes for VPN. Is this not wildly insecure?&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 11 Feb 2024 13:57:40 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/is-ftd-s-control-plane-wide-open/m-p/5016141#M1109002</guid>
      <dc:creator>guacamoley</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2024-02-11T13:57:40Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Is FTD’s control plane wide open?</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/is-ftd-s-control-plane-wide-open/m-p/5016143#M1109004</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;&lt;A href="https://integratingit.wordpress.com/2021/06/26/ftd-control-plane-acl/" target="_blank"&gt;https://integratingit.wordpress.com/2021/06/26/ftd-control-plane-acl/&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;In FTD using control -plane done via flexconfig&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Check link' I alos will check new versions of fdm and fmc if there is option to add it directly.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Thanks&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;MHM&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 11 Feb 2024 14:03:07 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/is-ftd-s-control-plane-wide-open/m-p/5016143#M1109004</guid>
      <dc:creator>MHM Cisco World</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2024-02-11T14:03:07Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Is FTD’s control plane wide open?</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/is-ftd-s-control-plane-wide-open/m-p/5016144#M1109005</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;&lt;a href="https://community.cisco.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/1583962"&gt;@guacamoley&lt;/a&gt; you can use the control-plane ACL functionality to restrict access "to" the FTD such as BGP, currently you must use FlexConfig to configure this.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;A href="https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/security/secure-firewall-threat-defense/221531-configure-control-plane-access-control-p.html" target="_blank"&gt;https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/security/secure-firewall-threat-defense/221531-configure-control-plane-access-control-p.html&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 11 Feb 2024 14:03:11 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/is-ftd-s-control-plane-wide-open/m-p/5016144#M1109005</guid>
      <dc:creator>Rob Ingram</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2024-02-11T14:03:11Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Is FTD’s control plane wide open?</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/is-ftd-s-control-plane-wide-open/m-p/5016175#M1109015</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;As &lt;a href="https://community.cisco.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/97036"&gt;@Rob Ingram&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href="https://community.cisco.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/1065752"&gt;@MHM Cisco World&lt;/a&gt; mentioned, you can use "access-group &amp;lt;name&amp;gt; in int outside control-plane" to control who can access TCP/179. Obviously, it is practically impossible to do the same for TCP/443, although technically control-plane ACLs do work for TCP/443 too. This means that TCP/443 is wide open and the firewall doesn't have protection for TCP/443.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Also, if you, for example, try to rate-limit TCP/443 messages to protect device from DoS, you'd find that none of ASA features work:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;- "class-map type management" doesn't allow you to limit connections or embryonic connections per-host in the corresponding policy-map&lt;BR /&gt;- "class" and "member" constructs do not limit to-the-box connections in case of multiple context mode (on ASA), hence "limit-resource rate" doesn't work too (this tool is unavailable on FTD as it doesn't support multiple mode)&lt;BR /&gt;- MPF is not capable of connection rate-limiting at all.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;HTH&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 11 Feb 2024 15:40:37 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/is-ftd-s-control-plane-wide-open/m-p/5016175#M1109015</guid>
      <dc:creator>tvotna</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2024-02-11T15:40:37Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Is FTD’s control plane wide open?</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/is-ftd-s-control-plane-wide-open/m-p/5016268#M1109035</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Doesn't the FTD have its own DDOS protection with the Network Analysis Policy?&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 11 Feb 2024 21:19:01 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/is-ftd-s-control-plane-wide-open/m-p/5016268#M1109035</guid>
      <dc:creator>guacamoley</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2024-02-11T21:19:01Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Is FTD’s control plane wide open?</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/is-ftd-s-control-plane-wide-open/m-p/5016274#M1109036</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;&lt;a href="https://community.cisco.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/1583962"&gt;@guacamoley&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;the NAP is for traffic "through" the FTD not "to".&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 11 Feb 2024 21:27:17 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/is-ftd-s-control-plane-wide-open/m-p/5016274#M1109036</guid>
      <dc:creator>Rob Ingram</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2024-02-11T21:27:17Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

