Attacks/Breaches

1/30/2019
11:30 AM
50%
50%

Access Control Lists: 6 Key Principles to Keep in Mind

Build them carefully and maintain them rigorously, and ACLs will remain a productive piece of your security infrastructure for generations of hardware to come.
Previous
1 of 8
Next

In an industry of constant, rapid change, an old-school security tool remains an effective piece of an overall security. Access Control Lists (ACLs) that specify precise rules for destinations and protocols allowed or forbidden, are the foundation of firewalls. And while firewalls have advanced to use analysis of packet contents and behavior, ACLs have not gone away.

There are a number of reasons why ACLs endure. The first, and most important, is that they work. ACLs are straight-forward, conceptually simple ways to limit traffic to and from known (or suspected) malicious addresses and to clear traffic to and from addresses known to be acceptable. Next, they play well with others. As Twitter user Frank Barton (@fbarton) wrote in response to a question about ACLs, "…much less cpu intensive than stateful and deep-packet. But…like Ogres, and onions…use layers. If you can block traffic at ACL, then pass remaining to “NGFW” [next-generation firewall] the fw [firewall] has less traffic to inspect."

As with all security measures, though, how an ACL is deployed will have a major impact on its effectiveness. Of course, precisely how the ACL is programmed will vary from manufacturer to manufacturer, and component to component, but there are key considerations that are true regardless of which device is hosting the ACL. Let's take a look at the principles to keep in mind to make ACLs an effective (and efficient) part of the overall security infrastructure.

(Image: photon_photo — stock.adobe.com)

 

Curtis Franklin Jr. is Senior Editor at Dark Reading. In this role he focuses on product and technology coverage for the publication. In addition he works on audio and video programming for Dark Reading and contributes to activities at Interop ITX, Black Hat, INsecurity, and ... View Full Bio

Previous
1 of 8
Next
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
paul.dittrich
50%
50%
paul.dittrich,
User Rank: Strategist
1/30/2019 | 3:40:31 PM
Harnessing the power of ACLs
I could not agree more strongly with every point in your column.

It may be fashionable to claim there is no longer a network perimeter but I still strongly favor using the border router as a "garbage filter".

The BOGONs list? - Drop them all.  Invalid TCP flag combinations - Drop.  No Telnet in your environment?  No FTP?  No RDP?  - Block them all at the border router.

As mentioned in the post, the NGFW should take care of the deep packet inspection for only the traffic you potentially want inside your network.  That firewall should see very little traffic except for the known IPs, ports and protocols which are candidates to be allowed all the way in.

And an outbound ACL (a.k.a. egress filtering) is a very powerful weapon against data exfiltration and many types of malware.  You may still have a Trojan but if it can't phone home......
Russia Hacked Clinton's Computers Five Hours After Trump's Call
Robert Lemos, Technology Journalist/Data Researcher,  4/19/2019
Tips for the Aftermath of a Cyberattack
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  4/17/2019
Why We Need a 'Cleaner Internet'
Darren Anstee, Chief Technology Officer at Arbor Networks,  4/19/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
5 Emerging Cyber Threats to Watch for in 2019
Online attackers are constantly developing new, innovative ways to break into the enterprise. This Dark Reading Tech Digest gives an in-depth look at five emerging attack trends and exploits your security team should look out for, along with helpful recommendations on how you can prevent your organization from falling victim.
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-7303
PUBLISHED: 2019-04-23
A vulnerability in the seccomp filters of Canonical snapd before version 2.37.4 allows a strict mode snap to insert characters into a terminal on a 64-bit host. The seccomp rules were generated to match 64-bit ioctl(2) commands on a 64-bit platform; however, the Linux kernel only uses the lower 32 b...
CVE-2019-7304
PUBLISHED: 2019-04-23
Canonical snapd before version 2.37.1 incorrectly performed socket owner validation, allowing an attacker to run arbitrary commands as root. This issue affects: Canonical snapd versions prior to 2.37.1.
CVE-2019-0223
PUBLISHED: 2019-04-23
While investigating bug PROTON-2014, we discovered that under some circumstances Apache Qpid Proton versions 0.9 to 0.27.0 (C library and its language bindings) can connect to a peer anonymously using TLS *even when configured to verify the peer certificate* while used with OpenSSL versions before 1...
CVE-2017-12619
PUBLISHED: 2019-04-23
Apache Zeppelin prior to 0.7.3 was vulnerable to session fixation which allowed an attacker to hijack a valid user session. Issue was reported by "stone lone".
CVE-2018-1317
PUBLISHED: 2019-04-23
In Apache Zeppelin prior to 0.8.0 the cron scheduler was enabled by default and could allow users to run paragraphs as other users without authentication.