Problems Authorizing Windows Updates

Problems Authorizing Windows Updates

Secure Home | Search | About
 Networking Firewalls    Post an article   get this group's latest topics as an RSS feed add this group's latest topics to your My MSN content add this group's latest topics to your My Yahoo content add this group's latest topics to your Google content
Subject Author Date
Problems Authorizing Windows Updates Will 03-23-2008
Posted by Will on March 23, 2008, 3:33 am
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
I'm having some problems with firewall authorizations for Windows Update
access in a DMZ. In general, I have had good luck getting access to
Windows Update when you authorize passage of HTTP, HTTPS, and FTP to these
networks:

131.107.0.0 / 16
207.46.0.0 / 16
64.4.0.0 / 18
65.52.0.0 / 14

In addition, I normally authorize these URLs for both http: and https:

*.microsoft.com
windowsupdate.microsoft.com
*.windowsupdate.microsoft.com
download.windowsupdate.com

The problem I am having is that occasionally the DNS name
"download.windowsupdate.com" resolves to some IPs on a huge network from the
Limelight load balancing farm. When the client behind the firewall
resolves that DNS to an IP, it then connects to the IP and the IP does NOT
reverse back to the DNS name download.windowsupdate.com. Instead it
resolves to some arbitrary name at the Limelight Network. So the firewall
has no way of knowing that the connection is authorized. Further
complicating all of this, download.windowsupdate.com does not always resolve
to the Limelight load balancers. Microsoft appears to have these IPs
pointing to load balancers all over the world. Some of the IPs I saw the
download.windowsupdate.com domain name resolve to:

208.111.148.50
8.12.217.124
192.78.223.126
209.84.2.124
etc

Microsoft provides a set of DNS names to use with the ISA firewall, and
naturally that doesn't work for the IPs above because they don't reverse to
Microsoft domain names.

No way do I want to authorize the entire Limelight load balancing network
into my DMZ. There are a huge number of IPs, and those are probably
associated with many hundreds of different organizations. When I do a
whois on the IPs Microsoft is using, nothing in the huge range of IPs
returned suggests which subset of the range is reserved for Microsoft use.

It would be really really nice for those of us who actually think about
security if Microsoft would publish openly the range of IPs it is using for
Windows Update. Failing that, I am open to ideas here about how can one
set up a reasonable set of firewall rules to securely connect to this
wideranging set of IPs.

--
Will



Posted by Burkhard Ott on March 23, 2008, 11:10 am
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
Am Sun, 23 Mar 2008 00:33:12 -0700 schrieb Will:

> I'm having some problems with firewall authorizations for Windows Update
> access in a DMZ. In general, I have had good luck getting access to
> Windows Update when you authorize passage of HTTP, HTTPS, and FTP to these
> networks:
>
> 131.107.0.0 / 16
> 207.46.0.0 / 16
> 64.4.0.0 / 18
> 65.52.0.0 / 14
>
> In addition, I normally authorize these URLs for both http: and https:
>
> *.microsoft.com
> windowsupdate.microsoft.com
> *.windowsupdate.microsoft.com
> download.windowsupdate.com
>
> The problem I am having is that occasionally the DNS name
> "download.windowsupdate.com" resolves to some IPs on a huge network from the

Why don't you use a proxy?

Posted by Will on March 23, 2008, 1:53 pm
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
> Am Sun, 23 Mar 2008 00:33:12 -0700 schrieb Will:
>
> > I'm having some problems with firewall authorizations for Windows Update
> > access in a DMZ. In general, I have had good luck getting access to
> > Windows Update when you authorize passage of HTTP, HTTPS, and FTP to
these
> > networks:
> >
> > 131.107.0.0 / 16
> > 207.46.0.0 / 16
> > 64.4.0.0 / 18
> > 65.52.0.0 / 14
> >
> > In addition, I normally authorize these URLs for both http: and https:
> >
> > *.microsoft.com
> > windowsupdate.microsoft.com
> > *.windowsupdate.microsoft.com
> > download.windowsupdate.com
> >
> > The problem I am having is that occasionally the DNS name
> > "download.windowsupdate.com" resolves to some IPs on a huge network from
the
>
> Why don't you use a proxy?

We use NAT on the firewall for all outgoing connections, and a proxy isn't
going to improve much on that. The thing we are trying to prevent is the
ability to reach unauthorized IPs by any means. If Windows Update has
download.windowsupdate.com resolving to half the Internet, you end up having
to open up through the firewall outgoing connections to a lot of hosts that
could be used to control a compromised host or to further the compromise.

--
Will



Posted by bz on March 23, 2008, 5:05 pm
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options

....
>
> We use NAT on the firewall for all outgoing connections, and a proxy
> isn't going to improve much on that. The thing we are trying to
> prevent is the ability to reach unauthorized IPs by any means. If
> Windows Update has download.windowsupdate.com resolving to half the
> Internet, you end up having to open up through the firewall outgoing
> connections to a lot of hosts that could be used to control a
> compromised host or to further the compromise.

I understand that IPCOP is a free firewall that will run on an old box with
multiple NICS.

I am told that it can cache windows updates [and other things] for you.
You might look at what it does and how.





--
bz         

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

bz+csf@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

Posted by Flash Gordon on March 24, 2008, 3:51 pm
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
Will wrote, On 23/03/08 17:53:
>> Am Sun, 23 Mar 2008 00:33:12 -0700 schrieb Will:
>>
>>> I'm having some problems with firewall authorizations for Windows Update
>>> access in a DMZ. In general, I have had good luck getting access to
>>> Windows Update when you authorize passage of HTTP, HTTPS, and FTP to
> these
>>> networks:
>>>
>>> 131.107.0.0 / 16
>>> 207.46.0.0 / 16
>>> 64.4.0.0 / 18
>>> 65.52.0.0 / 14
>>>
>>> In addition, I normally authorize these URLs for both http: and https:
>>>
>>> *.microsoft.com
>>> windowsupdate.microsoft.com
>>> *.windowsupdate.microsoft.com
>>> download.windowsupdate.com
>>>
>>> The problem I am having is that occasionally the DNS name
>>> "download.windowsupdate.com" resolves to some IPs on a huge network from
> the
>> Why don't you use a proxy?
>
> We use NAT on the firewall for all outgoing connections, and a proxy isn't
> going to improve much on that. The thing we are trying to prevent is the
> ability to reach unauthorized IPs by any means. If Windows Update has
> download.windowsupdate.com resolving to half the Internet, you end up having
> to open up through the firewall outgoing connections to a lot of hosts that
> could be used to control a compromised host or to further the compromise.

Set up rules so that only the proxy can access anything on ports 80 and
443 then the proxy can be set to only allow access to specific URLs.
Then the only way they can access anything the proxy does not allow is
by poisoning your DNS or accessing through some other port you have left
open on the firewall.
--
Flash Gordon

Similar ThreadsPosted
PCanywhere/Microsoft updates causing problems! December 7, 2005, 8:02 am
Windows Updates: Firewall setting for outbound traffic February 18, 2005, 10:05 am
Re: problems using different different FTP port with windows firewall January 3, 2008, 2:40 pm
Re: problems using different different FTP port with windows firewall January 4, 2008, 3:13 am
problems with the Windows Update site & Zone Alarm August 5, 2005, 5:41 pm
Authorizing Zonealarm to Allow DHCP Server July 23, 2005, 7:01 pm
Kerio updates December 1, 2004, 11:29 pm
ZA blocks my winxp updates. September 24, 2005, 6:32 pm
Allitcertkiller.com has all new updates than Testking.co.uk January 19, 2007, 1:28 am
ZoneAlarm: risk of not getting the continuous updates? July 5, 2006, 12:18 am

The site map in XML format XML site map

Contact Us | Privacy Policy