Back to list
RE: virtual firewalls -- compliance
May 11 2008 07:39PM
Craig Wright (Craig Wright bdo com au)
You do not need to specifically ban Something (Such as this).
Virtual hosts are ok as long as they are Single purpose devices.
PCI does not allow running dns and web on the Same Component -let alone separate Security Zones
So this is a big no no to which I would add the phrase "Contribitory Negligence" to any "Security professional" that Could even think of doing this.
Craig Wright GSE-Compliance
Manager, Risk Advisory Services
Direct : +61 2 9286 5497
Craig.Wright (at) bdo.com (dot) au [email concealed]
+61 417 683 914
BDO Kendalls (NSW-VIC) Pty. Ltd.
Level 19, 2 Market Street Sydney NSW 2000
GPO BOX 2551 Sydney NSW 2001
Fax +61 2 9993 9497
The information in this email and any attachments is confidential. If you are not the named addressee you must not read, print, copy, distribute, or use in any way this transmission or any information it contains. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by return email, destroy all copies and delete it from your system.
Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and not necessarily endorsed by BDO Kendalls. You may not rely on this message as advice unless subsequently confirmed by fax or letter signed by a Partner or Director of BDO Kendalls. It is your responsibility to scan this communication and any files attached for computer viruses and other defects. BDO Kendalls does not accept liability for any loss or damage however caused which may result from this communication or any files attached. A full version of the BDO Kendalls disclaimer, and our Privacy statement, can be found on the BDO Kendalls website at http://www.bdo.com.au<http://www.bdo.com.au/> or by emailing administrator (at) bdo.com (dot) au [email concealed]<mailto:administrator (at) bdo.com (dot) au [email concealed]>.
BDO Kendalls is a national association of separate partnerships and entities. Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.
From: "Erik Harrison" <eharrison (at) gmail (dot) com [email concealed]>
To: "Terry" <td3201 (at) gmail (dot) com [email concealed]>
Cc: "firewalls (at) securityfocus (dot) com [email concealed]" <firewalls (at) securityfocus (dot) com [email concealed]>
Sent: 12/05/08 3:20 AM
Subject: Re: virtual firewalls -- compliance
That's an interesting problem. For PCI - at least in my interpretation (please correct me if you do these assessments for a living) - as long as the VM parent, or the linux VM children are not controlled or accessed by other customers and you as the provider (or whoever manages the box) adhere to the DSS requirements, it should audit well. It's about segregation, logical or physical, as long as a client doesnt have access to break out and tamper with config which could alter their segregation, I think it's fine.
Now, if you're going to host multiple customers behind those firewalls, you'll want to VLAN each of them and probably not share a netblock among them - again for isolation purposes.
But again.. I'm not specialized in this area. If you find the answer to this, please let me know. I'd love to get this straight as well.
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 3:37 PM, Terry <td3201 (at) gmail (dot) com [email concealed]<mailto:td3201 (at) gmail (dot) com [email concealed]>> wrote:
I am throwing around the idea of using linux firewalls in vmware for
customer environments. The customers may or may not have
HIPAA/PCI/sOX/etc requirements. This is in the planning stages. Any
of you have experience heading down this route? PCIDSS doesn't
explicitly state problems with virtual firewalls, it seems to focus on
the logic of the rules.
[ reply ]
Copyright 2010, SecurityFocus