CLEANACCESS Archives

June 2006

CLEANACCESS@LISTSERV.MIAMIOH.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Michael Grinnell <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Perfigo SecureSmart and CleanMachines Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 14 Jun 2006 14:41:39 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (32 lines)
On Jun 14, 2006, at 2:05 PM, Jonathan Wayman wrote:

> I am curious to know if anyone has CCA deployed with any CAS  
> configured for
> out-of-band.
>
> After reading the documentation it is clear that OOB is quite more  
> involved
> than in-band.  I'd like to know if anyone has had many problems  
> arise from
> doing things this way.  It seems obvious that quite a bit more  
> planing would
> be required on the network side.  If anyone has experience with  
> configuring
> OOB please post here, I'd like to start a discussion.
>
> OOB is what is being suggested to us (for actual implimentation)  
> from the
> security firm assisting us with our pilot.  Currently I have only been
> playing with in-band in the test environment.

I'm curious as to their reasoning for recommending OOB over In-band.   
We implemented CCA before OOB was available, but based on my  
experience with VMPSd and other similar solutions, OOB would have  
required redesigning large parts of our network.  Also, Cisco still  
hasn't put some of our edge devices on their "approved" list.  So  
far, we've been very happy with In-band.

Michael Grinnell
Network Security Administrator
The American University

ATOM RSS1 RSS2