Developing an Effective & Affordable Security Infrastructure in a Small College Environment

1. Developing an Effective & Affordable Security Infrastructure in a Small College Environment

2. AboutPenn College • Williamsport Technical Institute, founded 1941 • Williamsport Area Community College, founded 1965 • Pennsylvania College of Technology, founded 1989 • Special Mission Affiliate of Penn State University • Accredited - Middle States Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools • 6,358 headcount - 5,891 FTE • 288 FTE faculty, 518 FTE staff • B.S., A.S. and certificate degrees in over 100 majors • Specialize in vocational and technology-based education • Strong focus on small class sizes and hands-on instruction • www.pct.edu

3. Williamsport, PA

4. ITInfrastructure • 2,600 College-owned computers, 1,400 student-owned computers in residential complexes • 1,600 computers in 50+ academic computer labs, student to computer ratio of 4:1 • Standard computer lab software includes Microsoft Windows XP, Office 2003, NetMail POP3 e-mail system

5. ITInfrastructure (cont’d) • 1,000 staff/faculty PCs • Standard employee image: Windows XP, Office 2003, Novell GroupWise, iSeries client • Novell Directory Services (NDS) • IBM iSeries mainframe, home-grown legacy administrative applications • WebCT, Sirsi, eRecruiting, Raiser’s Edge, Cbord Odyssey, EBMS • 25 Novell, 15 Microsoft, 3 Linux, 1 Sun, 1 AIX server

6. IT Infrastructure (cont’d) • 100% Cisco network infrastructure except for Packeteer Packetshaper • Fast Ethernet via CAT5 for all building LANs, Gigabit Ethernet via fiber for backbone • Dual Cisco 6500s for redundant core • Fractional T-3 (30 Mbps) Internet service • Dial-up Internet access provided for employees, not students • About 50% wireless coverage

7. Campus Network Layout

8. Organization (50 employees) Desktop Computing Academic Computing Technical Support/Help Desk Technical Writer/Trainer Administrative Information Systems Network Applications Mail & Document Services Media Services Telecommunications Information Technology Services

9. Post Y2K IT Security “Problem” • Increasing threats from viruses, trojans, worms, hackers, etc. • Lack of security standards • No coordinated security response • Poor security awareness • Minimal security policy • No security testing

10. The “Challenge” • Limitations • Budget • Staff • Time • Large backlog of post Y2K projects • Balancing security effectiveness with efficient resource management

11. Solution Analysis • Dedicated security staff vs. security team • Advantages of team approach: • Utilizes existing staff and expertise • Spreads/diffuses the importance of security across all functional IT areas • Funded through existing budgets • Disadvantages: • No centralized focus/authority • Long lead time to develop expertise • Staff time directed away from other projects • Not invented here syndrome

12. The “Solution” • IT management recommended forming a campus “security team.” • Each area of the IT department committed one employee and a percentage of its budget. • A senior manager was designated to provide leadership and coordination of this team effort. • The team met weekly over an initial 18 month period, then bi-weekly. • Rotating duty officer/CERT format

13. The Context • Risk vs. investment • Scope and impact for priority • Mitigating risk factors • Administrative data locked up in IBM iSeries (AS/400) • GroupWise e-mail system • Institutional policy requiring data files to be stored on network drives • Centralized IT management and budget culture

14. 7-Layer Security Approach • Layer 1 - Physical • Layer 2 - Internet • Layer 3 - Network • Layer 4 - ResNet • Layer 5 - Servers • Layer 6 - Employee PCs • Layer 7 - Social

15. Before Distributed servers, not physically secured, some actually in staff/faculty offices Network components not secured Minimal UPS protection After Most non-academic servers moved to secured data center; backup generator Wiring closets secured UPS for all servers and network equipment Layer 1 - Physical

16. Layer 2 - Internet • Before • Internet router with public IP addresses • No filtering of ports • After • Cisco PIX firewall with PAT translation initially, later acquired additional IPs, changed to NAT (still occasional problems, need an XLATE clear) • Access control list on Internet router (example) • Packeteer - Although purchased for bandwidth control, provides another layer of “protection” and “detection”

17. access-list 115 permit tcp any 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 established access-list 115 deny ip 10.0.0.0 0.255.255.255 any access-list 115 deny ip 127.0.0.0 0.255.255.255 any access-list 115 deny ip 172.16.0.0 0.15.255.255 any access-list 115 deny ip 192.168.0.0 0.0.255.255 any access-list 115 deny ip 224.0.0.0 15.255.255.255 any access-list 115 deny ip host 0.0.0.0 any access-list 115 deny ip 12.23.198.0 0.0.0.255 any access-list 115 deny ip 12.23.199.0 0.0.0.255 any access-list 115 deny ip any 0.0.0.255 255.255.255.0 access-list 115 deny tcp any any eq 135 access-list 115 deny udp any any eq 135 access-list 115 deny tcp any any eq 137 access-list 115 deny udp any any eq netbios-ns access-list 115 deny tcp any any eq 138 access-list 115 deny udp any any eq netbios-dgm access-list 115 deny tcp any any eq 139 access-list 115 deny udp any any eq netbios-ss access-list 115 deny tcp any any eq 445 access-list 115 deny udp any any eq 445 access-list 115 deny tcp any any eq 593 access-list 115 deny udp any any eq 593 access-list 115 deny tcp any any eq 3333 access-list 115 deny udp any any eq 3333 access-list 115 deny tcp any any eq 4444 access-list 115 deny udp any any eq 4444 access-list 115 deny tcp any any eq 69 access-list 115 deny udp any any eq tftp access-list 115 deny tcp any any eq 161 access-list 115 deny udp any any eq snmp access-list 115 deny tcp any any eq 162 access-list 115 deny udp any any eq snmptrap access-list 115 deny udp any any eq 1993 access-list 115 deny tcp any any eq 1900 access-list 115 deny udp any any eq 1900 access-list 115 deny tcp any any eq 5000 access-list 115 deny udp any any eq 5000 access-list 115 deny udp any any eq 8998 access-list 115 permit icmp any any echo access-list 115 permit icmp any any echo-reply access-list 115 deny ip any any log-input Internet Router ACL

18. Layer 3 – Network - Before • 10.x.x.x organized geographically; each “building complex” has a subnet; 10.1.x.x, 10.2.x.x, 10.3.x.x, etc. • Any to any routing philosophy • Simple telnet to devices • No central security scheme

19. 100% VLAN scheme VLANs based on computer/user role Internet style ACLs applied on traffic leaving VLANs Traffic denied entering VLAN ifno reason for the traffic Extended today to separate VLANS for point-of-sale stations, HVAC, wireless, dial-up; each with its own ACL SSH required to access devices, coordinated userid/password with Cisco ACS server that LDAPs to our NDS Layer 3 – Network - After • 10.1.x.x network equipment • 10.2.x.x servers • 10.3.x.x printers • 10.4.x.x staff • 10.100.x.x ResNet • Etc.

20. Before Normal network subnet No restrictions ISP attitude No scanning After – version 1 Single VLAN ACL limited access to other campus VLANs After – version 2 VLAN per 48 port switch Internet style ACL “rule set” to block known bad ports such as 445 Routine scanning and quarantining Layer 4 – ResNet

21. Layer 5 – Servers - Before • Public IP address via firewall conduit • Distributed physically • No port filtering • Inconsistent patch strategy • No virus protection • Inconsistent HTTPS implementation • Many outside of the “network” department • No scanning for vulnerabilities • No disaster recovery plan

22. Layer 5 – Servers - After • Servers in data center or managed by server group • HTTPS required for any sensitive data • Private IP addresses mapped to public via “conduit” in the firewall • Port filtered in the firewall, deny all, allow those required for specific services • Port filtered coming out of ResNet and student computer labs • Managed patch strategy, critical patches applied in 24 hours • Symantec Anti-Virus on servers • NetMail/CA eTrust anti-virus and RBL filtering for e-mail • GWAVA/Symantec Anti-Virus e-mail filtering • GWAVA attachment filtering • Routine Nessus scanning • Comprehensive disaster recovery plan

23. After Private IP address via PAT/NAT Managed Symantec Anti-Virus “Push” of critical Microsoft security patches via Novell ZenWorks Nessus scanning Before Public IP address No anti-virus No patch management No scanning Layer 6 - Employee PCs

24. Before Little or no public awareness No AUP Loose user ID and password policies “It won’t happen here, we know everyone personally After Acceptable Use Policy Accounts blocked after 3 failed log in attempts Passwords changed every 180 days Regular communication via online newspaper Security education classes Layer 7 - Social

25. What’s on the radar screen? • Spyware • PC firewall • Instant Messenging issues • VPN • Network access control • Two factor authentication • Security as it affects privacy issues • E-mail security

26. Security team was the right approach for us Effective, no significant down-time except for Blaster/Welcia, fall 2003 Cost-efficient Diffused security awareness across the department Developed security skills across ITS Security Infrastructure Cisco PIX firewall Packeteer Packetshaper Cisco VLANs/ACLs Symantec Anti-Virus Novell ZenWorks GWAVA Anti-virus/attachment filtering Nessus Conclusion

27. Discussion

28. Slide to link