|
Posted by Leythos on March 21, 2008, 9:10 am
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
usc@noemail.nospam says...
> > usc@noemail.nospam says...
> >> The attack is usually different. The user inside the network using a
> >> browser goes to a page with a trojan and it is embedded as an Active/X,
> >> for
> >> example. So a defense against that would be to inspect the active/x
> >> binary
> >> during download for metainformation as well as checksum that might
> >> identify
> >> it and then block it.
> >
> > Actually, blocking ActiveX completely is the best method. There is no
> > reason to allow ActiveX except from known good sites that require it for
> > your business.
>
> Agreed and that is for the web browsers behind our firewall.
>
> I'm trying to protect a web server, so blocking Active/X at the browser
> isn't addressing my need.
>
> What I am looking for is a web application firewall that is commoditized as
> an appliance for low-end servers, similar to what Fortinet has done with
> their 50B and 60B firewall appliances for small businesses.
If a web server is all you want to protect, then a simple NAT router
will do all you need if you properly secure the server and web services.
What OS/Web service are you running?
--
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
| 
XML site map