<?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: Access Lists on VTY? in Network Security</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/access-lists-on-vty/m-p/1434694#M942154</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Actually my latest implementation of a CMZ (Common Management Zone) had both a linux and ms server. The Linux one for ssh from anywhere, syslog and for hosting webapps like an IP-plan and it's running rancid. The Win2k3 server is more like a toolbox for the IT-department. With all tools normally on the desktop present.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Sun, 09 May 2010 20:44:48 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Kent Heide</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2010-05-09T20:44:48Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Access Lists on VTY?</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/access-lists-on-vty/m-p/1434688#M942148</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi Guys,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I've been wondering lately what the security risks of not having a access list on the VTY interfaces or just a access list for SSH on the dialer interface.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;My problem is as a service provider and maintaining client networks we are not always at our office on our static IP address, I thought of using options such as VPNs either direct to the client or to our office to use its IP.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;So the questions are:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;UL&gt;&lt;LI&gt;How big of a security risk is it not having any ACLs on the vty interfaces? (Telnet has been disabled only SSH is allowed)&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;What is better a ACL on the VTYs or on the dialer? (I've taken over managment of a network and had to use a console connection to gain access as the ACLs only allowed certain IPs which we did not have access to)&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;What do other service providers do in this situation?&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;/UL&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Feb 2020 11:57:18 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/access-lists-on-vty/m-p/1434688#M942148</guid>
      <dc:creator>jamesitsolutions</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-02-21T11:57:18Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Access Lists on VTY?</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/access-lists-on-vty/m-p/1434689#M942149</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN style="font-family: book antiqua,palatino; font-size: 12pt;"&gt;Good of you to think laterally.&amp;nbsp; Anything can be a risk.&amp;nbsp; We have ACLs (aside from disable telnet and enable SSH along with RADIUS and TACACS) is to limit what subnet can remotely access your appliances.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; ACLs on your Telnet/SSH works hand-in-hand with RADIUS and TACACS to make the management of your network appliance more secure.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 09 May 2010 11:15:22 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/access-lists-on-vty/m-p/1434689#M942149</guid>
      <dc:creator>Leo Laohoo</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2010-05-09T11:15:22Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Access Lists on VTY?</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/access-lists-on-vty/m-p/1434690#M942150</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;In a service provider situation I would recommend using a jumpstation to access your devices and allow this in your VTY ACL.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;It's scalable and secure. The benefit on applying it to the ACL instead of the interface is because a VTY acl&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;does not go in between your traffic flows.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 09 May 2010 12:13:15 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/access-lists-on-vty/m-p/1434690#M942150</guid>
      <dc:creator>Kent Heide</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2010-05-09T12:13:15Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Access Lists on VTY?</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/access-lists-on-vty/m-p/1434691#M942151</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;PRE __jive_macro_name="quote" class="jive_text_macro jive_macro_quote"&gt;&lt;P&gt;kentheide wrote:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;In a service provider situation I would recommend using a jumpstation to access your devices and allow this in your VTY ACL.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;It's scalable and secure. The benefit on applying it to the ACL instead of the interface is because a VTY acl&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;does not go in between your traffic flows.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/PRE&gt;&lt;P&gt;That makes sense now about the VTY ACL, somehow in my head I thought it would be better on the interface :S my bad&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;However what do you mean by a 'jumpstation'? do you simply mean a device that has a static IP address that all the clients routers have in their ACL and we then SSH/VPN into the 'jumpstation' to gain access to the devices we require?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 09 May 2010 12:22:32 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/access-lists-on-vty/m-p/1434691#M942151</guid>
      <dc:creator>jamesitsolutions</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2010-05-09T12:22:32Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Access Lists on VTY?</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/access-lists-on-vty/m-p/1434692#M942152</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Basically yes! Different implementations i've done recently is;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;- linux/unix box to SSH to and then run telnet/ssh to your devices. can also do stuff like syslog and rancid for configs.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;- Win2k3 server running MS Terminal Services to RDP to. Can have tools like SecureCRT on it and other NMS tools like scanners etc.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;This host obviously being placed in a secure management zone.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 09 May 2010 12:54:54 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/access-lists-on-vty/m-p/1434692#M942152</guid>
      <dc:creator>Kent Heide</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2010-05-09T12:54:54Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Access Lists on VTY?</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/access-lists-on-vty/m-p/1434693#M942153</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;PRE __jive_macro_name="quote" class="jive_text_macro jive_macro_quote"&gt;&lt;P&gt;kentheide wrote:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Basically yes! Different implementations i've done recently is;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;- linux/unix box to SSH to and then run telnet/ssh to your devices. can also do stuff like syslog and rancid for configs.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;- Win2k3 server running MS Terminal Services to RDP to. Can have tools like SecureCRT on it and other NMS tools like scanners etc.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;This host obviously being placed in a secure management zone.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/PRE&gt;&lt;P&gt;This brings up the question of syslog and its security, how can I ensure the security and protection of the data? &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;And on a side note, which have you found more useful linux or windows as a host? Linux comes with syslog/ssh etc by default and can run port scanners etc, however windows is such a complete desktop when combined with RDP? but then again Linux is by default much more secure.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;PS. I plan to setup a firewall on the Linux box if i go that path to only allow SSH&amp;amp;SYSLOG in/out&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 09 May 2010 13:10:52 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/access-lists-on-vty/m-p/1434693#M942153</guid>
      <dc:creator>jamesitsolutions</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2010-05-09T13:10:52Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Access Lists on VTY?</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/access-lists-on-vty/m-p/1434694#M942154</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Actually my latest implementation of a CMZ (Common Management Zone) had both a linux and ms server. The Linux one for ssh from anywhere, syslog and for hosting webapps like an IP-plan and it's running rancid. The Win2k3 server is more like a toolbox for the IT-department. With all tools normally on the desktop present.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 09 May 2010 20:44:48 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/access-lists-on-vty/m-p/1434694#M942154</guid>
      <dc:creator>Kent Heide</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2010-05-09T20:44:48Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

