Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Attacks/Breaches

1/30/2019
11:30 AM
50%
50%

Access Control Lists: 6 Key Principles to Keep in Mind

Build them carefully and maintain them rigorously, and ACLs will remain a productive piece of your security infrastructure for generations of hardware to come.
Previous
1 of 8
Next

In an industry of constant, rapid change, an old-school security tool remains an effective piece of an overall security. Access Control Lists (ACLs) that specify precise rules for destinations and protocols allowed or forbidden, are the foundation of firewalls. And while firewalls have advanced to use analysis of packet contents and behavior, ACLs have not gone away.

There are a number of reasons why ACLs endure. The first, and most important, is that they work. ACLs are straight-forward, conceptually simple ways to limit traffic to and from known (or suspected) malicious addresses and to clear traffic to and from addresses known to be acceptable. Next, they play well with others. As Twitter user Frank Barton (@fbarton) wrote in response to a question about ACLs, "…much less cpu intensive than stateful and deep-packet. But…like Ogres, and onions…use layers. If you can block traffic at ACL, then pass remaining to “NGFW” [next-generation firewall] the fw [firewall] has less traffic to inspect."

As with all security measures, though, how an ACL is deployed will have a major impact on its effectiveness. Of course, precisely how the ACL is programmed will vary from manufacturer to manufacturer, and component to component, but there are key considerations that are true regardless of which device is hosting the ACL. Let's take a look at the principles to keep in mind to make ACLs an effective (and efficient) part of the overall security infrastructure.

(Image: photon_photo — stock.adobe.com)

 

Curtis Franklin Jr. is Senior Editor at Dark Reading. In this role he focuses on product and technology coverage for the publication. In addition he works on audio and video programming for Dark Reading and contributes to activities at Interop ITX, Black Hat, INsecurity, and ... View Full Bio

Previous
1 of 8
Next
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
paul.dittrich
50%
50%
paul.dittrich,
User Rank: Strategist
1/30/2019 | 3:40:31 PM
Harnessing the power of ACLs
I could not agree more strongly with every point in your column.

It may be fashionable to claim there is no longer a network perimeter but I still strongly favor using the border router as a "garbage filter".

The BOGONs list? - Drop them all.  Invalid TCP flag combinations - Drop.  No Telnet in your environment?  No FTP?  No RDP?  - Block them all at the border router.

As mentioned in the post, the NGFW should take care of the deep packet inspection for only the traffic you potentially want inside your network.  That firewall should see very little traffic except for the known IPs, ports and protocols which are candidates to be allowed all the way in.

And an outbound ACL (a.k.a. egress filtering) is a very powerful weapon against data exfiltration and many types of malware.  You may still have a Trojan but if it can't phone home......
Why Cyber-Risk Is a C-Suite Issue
Marc Wilczek, Digital Strategist & CIO Advisor,  11/12/2019
DevSecOps: The Answer to the Cloud Security Skills Gap
Lamont Orange, Chief Information Security Officer at Netskope,  11/15/2019
Unreasonable Security Best Practices vs. Good Risk Management
Jack Freund, Director, Risk Science at RiskLens,  11/13/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
Navigating the Deluge of Security Data
In this Tech Digest, Dark Reading shares the experiences of some top security practitioners as they navigate volumes of security data. We examine some examples of how enterprises can cull this data to find the clues they need.
Flash Poll
Rethinking Enterprise Data Defense
Rethinking Enterprise Data Defense
Frustrated with recurring intrusions and breaches, cybersecurity professionals are questioning some of the industrys conventional wisdom. Heres a look at what theyre thinking about.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-19010
PUBLISHED: 2019-11-16
Eval injection in the Math plugin of Limnoria (before 2019.11.09) and Supybot (through 2018-05-09) allows remote unprivileged attackers to disclose information or possibly have unspecified other impact via the calc and icalc IRC commands.
CVE-2019-16761
PUBLISHED: 2019-11-15
A specially crafted Bitcoin script can cause a discrepancy between the specified SLP consensus rules and the validation result of the [email protected] npm package. An attacker could create a specially crafted Bitcoin script in order to cause a hard-fork from the SLP consensus. All versions >1.0...
CVE-2019-16762
PUBLISHED: 2019-11-15
A specially crafted Bitcoin script can cause a discrepancy between the specified SLP consensus rules and the validation result of the slpjs npm package. An attacker could create a specially crafted Bitcoin script in order to cause a hard-fork from the SLP consensus. Affected users can upgrade to any...
CVE-2019-13581
PUBLISHED: 2019-11-15
An issue was discovered in Marvell 88W8688 Wi-Fi firmware before version p52, as used on Tesla Model S/X vehicles manufactured before March 2018, via the Parrot Faurecia Automotive FC6050W module. A heap-based buffer overflow allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service or execute arbitrary ...
CVE-2019-13582
PUBLISHED: 2019-11-15
An issue was discovered in Marvell 88W8688 Wi-Fi firmware before version p52, as used on Tesla Model S/X vehicles manufactured before March 2018, via the Parrot Faurecia Automotive FC6050W module. A stack overflow could lead to denial of service or arbitrary code execution.