<?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 ASA design in Network Security</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/asa-design/m-p/2980324#M150350</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi,&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;We have currently a Checkpoint external firewall internet facing, behind we have Cisco ASA for VPN ( for external users for remote access)&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Now we have requirement to replace these two old firewalls with new Cisco ASA 5555-X firewall and merge both firewalls ( check point and old ASA) into new 5555-X ASA.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;After having discussion with network team, they are suggesting this is not a good design and might be security risk by combining both external internet facing firewall and remote access VPN ASA into one ASA.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Please can you share your opinion on this approach and if anyone has this kind of similar &amp;nbsp;setup?&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Regards,&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Mar 2019 08:12:49 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>mohammedrafiq</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2019-03-12T08:12:49Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>ASA design</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/asa-design/m-p/2980324#M150350</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi,&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;We have currently a Checkpoint external firewall internet facing, behind we have Cisco ASA for VPN ( for external users for remote access)&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Now we have requirement to replace these two old firewalls with new Cisco ASA 5555-X firewall and merge both firewalls ( check point and old ASA) into new 5555-X ASA.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;After having discussion with network team, they are suggesting this is not a good design and might be security risk by combining both external internet facing firewall and remote access VPN ASA into one ASA.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Please can you share your opinion on this approach and if anyone has this kind of similar &amp;nbsp;setup?&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Regards,&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Mar 2019 08:12:49 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/asa-design/m-p/2980324#M150350</guid>
      <dc:creator>mohammedrafiq</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-03-12T08:12:49Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Both designs are valid, with</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/asa-design/m-p/2980325#M150351</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Both designs are valid, with cost and flexibility usually becoming the deciding factor.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Your current design is essentially a single firewall with a remote access VPN sitting behind a firewall (unless you ommitted that this is also an inside firewall).&lt;BR /&gt;The VPN ASA does not perform any firewall functions - its a remote access gateway, and there really is no point in having this behind the checkpoint.&lt;BR /&gt;VPN connections are encrypted, you wouldnt be inspecting the encrypted SSL traffic anyway, and you just put more load on the checkpoint.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;That being said, there are advantages to separating the functionality.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;You can run separate code on the ASA acting as a firewall and the VPN ASA.&lt;BR /&gt;This is usefull in scenarios where you may need a new security feature in one code that introduces a VPN bug, allowing you to utlise the new feature set whilst not impacting VPN.&lt;BR /&gt;Essentially allowing you to run the most stable code for the features and specific functionality you require.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;It also allows you to perform upgrades on the VPN ASA without impacting your firewall edge, and vise versa.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;You also have the option down the track to deploy a second FW ASA and run it in clustering for increase throughput.&lt;BR /&gt;If you combine the SSLVPN and FW functionality you can only deploy HA in an Active / Standby model.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;The best place to start would be to review Cisco validated internet edge design and go from there:&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;A href="http://www.cisco.com/c/dam/en/us/td/docs/solutions/CVD/Oct2015/Internet_Edge_Design_Oct2015.pdf"&gt;http://www.cisco.com/c/dam/en/us/td/docs/solutions/CVD/Oct2015/Internet_Edge_Design_Oct2015.pdf&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 31 Aug 2016 16:32:19 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/asa-design/m-p/2980325#M150351</guid>
      <dc:creator>bezcomservices</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2016-08-31T16:32:19Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

