Terminal Server Security

Terminal Server Security

Secure Home | Search | About
 Microsoft Applications Security    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
Terminal Server Security dMn 12-06-2006
Posted by dMn on December 6, 2006, 5:10 pm
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
I am working with an organization that is setting up remote user access
to a 2003 Server system. They expect only one to two users
simultaneously, but need a reasonable level of security. My original
designs include the use of a VPN in front of the connection. I read a
few articles that claim the encryption and security of the terminal
services on 2003 are such that you don't need a VPN.

For arguments sake, I will suspend my prejudicial judgement about
letting any Microsoft service support Internet services :) Can anyone
make a case for why setting the client encryption setting to "High" (or
is there something better) is as good as using a VPN. Assume for
arguments sake that I would authenticate both RSA tokens. Likewise,
what are the arguments against hanging a terminal server out on the Net?
Again, assume I use the available security options to configure it.

Posted by Leythos on December 6, 2006, 6:19 pm
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
> I am working with an organization that is setting up remote user access
> to a 2003 Server system. They expect only one to two users
> simultaneously, but need a reasonable level of security. My original
> designs include the use of a VPN in front of the connection. I read a
> few articles that claim the encryption and security of the terminal
> services on 2003 are such that you don't need a VPN.
>
> For arguments sake, I will suspend my prejudicial judgement about
> letting any Microsoft service support Internet services :) Can anyone
> make a case for why setting the client encryption setting to "High" (or
> is there something better) is as good as using a VPN. Assume for
> arguments sake that I would authenticate both RSA tokens. Likewise,
> what are the arguments against hanging a terminal server out on the Net?
> Again, assume I use the available security options to configure it.

We've 16 terminal servers with different clients and NEVER expose them
directly to the internet. We use firewall appliances, setup individual
VPN accounts to the firewall and then limit the users (RD) to TCP 3389
and the IP of the terminal server only. They can't reach anywhere else
in the network through the VPN and only on 3389. With this solution, and
other methods, we've passed all security audits.

Now, we also don't use single/Ad authentication - we provide the
user/password for the firewall and then the user creates the password
for their AD account - meaning we don't use the same user name as their
windows logon account.

We have one new client that has an exposed Windows 2000 terminal server
and they've had RD exposed for 2 years, and as far as anyone can tell
they've not been hacked - but their entire network is setup to fail (we
are rebuilding it).

Personally, I never expose a windows server directly to the net, other
than SMTP and HTTPS.

--

spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

Posted by Todd H. on December 6, 2006, 7:33 pm
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options

> I am working with an organization that is setting up remote user
> access to a 2003 Server system. They expect only one to two users
> simultaneously, but need a reasonable level of security. My original
> designs include the use of a VPN in front of the connection. I read a
> few articles that claim the encryption and security of the terminal
> services on 2003 are such that you don't need a VPN.
>
> For arguments sake, I will suspend my prejudicial judgement about
> letting any Microsoft service support Internet services :) Can anyone
> make a case for why setting the client encryption setting to "High"
> (or is there something better) is as good as using a VPN. Assume for
> arguments sake that I would authenticate both RSA tokens. Likewise,
> what are the arguments against hanging a terminal server out on the
> Net? Again, assume I use the available security options to configure
> it.

Not sure of the specifics, but I'd be hesitant too. here's a place to
wittle from:

http://search.securityfocus.com/swsearch?query=microsoft+rdp&sbm=bid&submit=Search%21&metaname=alldoc&sort=swishlastmodified

Isn't terminal server also vulnerable to man in the middle?

--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/

Posted by dMn on December 6, 2006, 6:45 pm
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
Todd H. wrote:
<CUT>
> Isn't terminal server also vulnerable to man in the middle?
>
I would think that 128 bit RC4 would alleviate this, but I need to do
more research to be sure.

dMn

Posted by Sebastian Gottschalk on December 6, 2006, 6:59 pm
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
Todd H. wrote:

> Not sure of the specifics, but I'd be hesitant too. here's a place to
> wittle from:
>
>
http://search.securityfocus.com/swsearch?query=microsoft+rdp&sbm=bid&submit=Search%21&metaname=alldoc&sort=swishlastmodified
>
> Isn't terminal server also vulnerable to man in the middle?

Only if the server itself is malicious. This is about the only known
vulnerability that remained since RDP 5.1.

Similar ThreadsPosted
Terminal server security issue with screen cache? December 19, 2005, 12:20 pm
Security settings on the Terminal Server prevent automatic logon September 12, 2005, 3:18 am
Terminal Server on the DMZ December 26, 2005, 12:59 am
Terminal server log March 24, 2008, 10:48 am
Group Policy with Terminal Server July 23, 2005, 5:24 am
secure lockdown of terminal server liscencing? July 5, 2007, 6:58 pm
Using SSL Certificate for TSAC on NLB Windows 2003 Terminal Server March 28, 2006, 11:42 am
Terminal Server with Roaming Profile Locks Accounts January 3, 2007, 1:29 pm
Terminal server rdp, tls certificates & subject alternative names? June 30, 2008, 11:03 am
Terminal Services December 1, 2005, 4:26 pm

The site map in XML format XML site map

Contact Us | Privacy Policy