> “Enterprise applications should be able to be used over the public internet.” Isn’t exposing your internal domains and systems outside VPN-gated access a risk? My understanding is this means internaltool.faang.com should now be publicly accessible.
I read the federal government’s Zero-Trust Memo so you don’t have to
11–20 of 369 posts
Re: I read the federal government’s Zero-Trust Memo so you don’t have to
#12> “Enterprise applications should be able to be used over the public internet.” Isn’t exposing your internal domains and systems outside VPN-gated access a risk? My understanding is this means internaltool.faang.com should now be publicly accessible.
As I understand it, this sentence says that the application should be safe even if it was exposed to the public internet, not that it needs to be exposed. It is a good practice to securize everything even if visible only internally. The "perimeter defense" given by a VPN can be a plus, but never the only line of defense.
Re: I read the federal government’s Zero-Trust Memo so you don’t have to
#13> “Enterprise applications should be able to be used over the public internet.” Isn’t exposing your internal domains and systems outside VPN-gated access a risk? My understanding is this means internaltool.faang.com should now be publicly accessible.
It's a different framing to get rid of figleafs. Everything has to be built so that it actually has a chance of being secure - if your state of mind is "this is exposed to the public internet", BS excuses like "this is only exposed to the TotallySecure intranet" don't work any more, because they don't work in the first place. Perimeter security only works in exceedingly narrow circumstances which don't apply - and ha…
Re: I read the federal government’s Zero-Trust Memo so you don’t have to
#14> “Enterprise applications should be able to be used over the public internet.” Isn’t exposing your internal domains and systems outside VPN-gated access a risk? My understanding is this means internaltool.faang.com should now be publicly accessible.
As I understand it, this sentence says that the application should be safe even if it was exposed to the public internet, not that it needs to be exposed. It is a good practice to securize everything even if visible only internally. The "perimeter defense" given by a VPN can be a plus, but never the only line of defense.
Re: I read the federal government’s Zero-Trust Memo so you don’t have to
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
As I understand it, this sentence says that the application should be safe even if it was exposed to the public internet, not that it needs to be exposed. It is a good practice to securize everything even if visible only internally. The "perimeter defense" given by a VPN can be a plus, but never the only line of defense.
No, the memo pretty clearly says that VPNs need to go away.
Re: I read the federal government’s Zero-Trust Memo so you don’t have to
#16Its simple amazing.
Re: I read the federal government’s Zero-Trust Memo so you don’t have to
#17This is pretty incredible. These aren't just good practices, they're the fairly bleeding edge best practices. 1. No more SMS and TOTP. FIDO2 tokens only. 2. No more unencrypted network traffic - including DNS, which is such a recent development and they're mandating it. Incredible. 3. Context aware authorization. So not just "can this user access this?" but attestation about device state! That's extremely cutting edg…
They even call out the fact that it's a proven bad practice that leads to weaker passwords - and such policies must be gone from government systems in 1 year from publication of the memo. It's delightful.
Re: I read the federal government’s Zero-Trust Memo so you don’t have to
#18Btw - I'd love to see the people who put this memo together re-evaluate the ID.me system they're implementing for citizens given how poor the identity verification is.
Re: I read the federal government’s Zero-Trust Memo so you don’t have to
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
As I understand it, this sentence says that the application should be safe even if it was exposed to the public internet, not that it needs to be exposed. It is a good practice to securize everything even if visible only internally. The "perimeter defense" given by a VPN can be a plus, but never the only line of defense.
No, the memo pretty clearly says that VPNs need to go away.
Where does it say they should go away?
Re: I read the federal government’s Zero-Trust Memo so you don’t have to
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a different framing to get rid of figleafs. Everything has to be built so that it actually has a chance of being secure - if your state of mind is "this is exposed to the public internet", BS excuses like "this is only exposed to the TotallySecure intranet" don't work any more, because they don't work in the first place. Perimeter security only works in exceedingly narrow circumstances which don't apply - and ha…
For anyone confused about the term "figleaf", I assume it's a reference to fig leafs being used by Renaissance artists to mask genitalia. So "things concealing the naked truth" approximately.