Re: Remote access between firewalls

well, clearly, I am not understanding something about this configuration here...

user --- FW --- internet --- PIX --- server(https://)

this config, for the user, is just go to https:// and at the PIX, there is only a static map from outside to inside address. No 7.1 requirement. All security (other than port restriction) is handled by the certs and software on the server.

user --- FW --- internet --- PIX --- local network
/\
with Cisco VPN client

this config, establishes a VPN from the inside addresses at the user's end through both firewalls and exposes the inside addresses of the local network to the user's platform, using SSL encryption on the VPN tunnel. The user, for all intents and purposes, essentially has access to your local network addresses as if they were there.



Burns, Bryan wrote:

SSL to a web server requires 7.1, SSL VPN doesn't. This is my understanding.


-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of R Bruce Hoffman
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 3:16 PM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: Re: Remote access between firewalls


SSL through the PIX to the web page would just be a static mapping, plain
old NAT/PAT... the benefit there would be that no client is required and
anyone with a password can use it, unless you are also deploying client
certificates. You're just passing security on to the web server.
That, by itself, and the client through the PIX, don't require 7.1 so I'm
curious... what's driving the 7.1 upgrade? (Not that it's a bad thing...)

Burns, Bryan wrote:

I'm also looking at doing an SSL connection through the PIX to a webpage that
a user signs on to. From there, they'll just use an emulator like Mochasoft.
That's what our consultant recommended. We'll have to upgrade the PIX to 7.1
though.
Any thoughts on this one?
Thanks,
Bryan