Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP)
-
@stacksofplates said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
@scottalanmiller said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
@stacksofplates said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
@scottalanmiller said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
@stacksofplates said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
@scottalanmiller said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
@tim_g said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
@scottalanmiller said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
@dave247 said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
@tim_g said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
Wtf how are there 132 posts? Just noticed. I can't read all those...
Don't. Just tell me how the eff can I easily restrict non-company computers from getting a DHCP address.
But we figured out that that was not your goal. You keep going back and forth between three different things....
- How do you secure your network (never asked, but you stated was your goal.)
- How do restrict DHCP in the way stated here and in the OP.
- How to meet the requirements of the audit.
There totally different goals. You haven't settled on one. Every time someone asks, you state a different one as being what you are trying to do. You have to decide on your goal before anyone can answer clearly. This is why this has gone on so long. We've been trying to determine what the goal is, that's why I dug into your work situation to help to find out what the goal is.
I didn't read the all the posts, but if this is the case, then IPSEC all network communications would be a great start.
Sort of. But what we REALLY determined is that he has one, and only one solid requirement... that he has to move to static IPs. The desire for security was a misunderstanding he had based on something he thought that they were implying with the requirement, but it was incorrect and not what it said (and definitely not what it implied.) The only answer that doesn't risk his job is going to static IPs. The goal for security is his own personal one and not one from the audit or his boss. The demand for static IPs is from the auditor and his boss. That's the task he's required to do.
Not really. This is what was stated:
I don't know the actual question they ask but here is the text from the relevant section of the suggested practices from the same company:
Static IP Address Assignment
Manually assigning an IP address to a device which will not change automatically. This aids in networm management, but it also improves security by preventing devices introuced to the network from automatically being assigned an IP adddresses and other required network information.
Standards Mapping:
Control Type: (Project)
NIST Cybersecurity Framework: PR.AC-4
NIST 800-53 Mapping: AC-02, AC-03, IA-02, IA-04
Control Class: TechnicalSuggested practices are not directives.
They are when they ding you on an audit for it and you are required to pass the audit. That makes it a requirement regardless of how it is written.
Because this was the concern:
One of the security concerns that was brought up to me now was that anyone can plug their laptop into an open network jack and get an IP address and my boss is trying to get me to assign everything static again.
The concern was not that everything wasn't static. That was suggested and the boss (most likely out of fear from the auditors) just went along with it. The requirement is not static and they could not legally fail because everything isn't static.
What does "legally fail" mean here? The boss and the auditor stated that their goals were static. Dave is free to argue that that's crazy, but he has to do so. As it stands, both parties to which he has to answer currently have stated clearly that they want static addresses not some result that results from that.
They are legally required to do these audits.
How did you arrive at that?
-
@stacksofplates said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
@scottalanmiller said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
@stacksofplates said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
@scottalanmiller said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
@stacksofplates said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
@scottalanmiller said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
@tim_g said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
@scottalanmiller said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
@dave247 said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
@tim_g said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
Wtf how are there 132 posts? Just noticed. I can't read all those...
Don't. Just tell me how the eff can I easily restrict non-company computers from getting a DHCP address.
But we figured out that that was not your goal. You keep going back and forth between three different things....
- How do you secure your network (never asked, but you stated was your goal.)
- How do restrict DHCP in the way stated here and in the OP.
- How to meet the requirements of the audit.
There totally different goals. You haven't settled on one. Every time someone asks, you state a different one as being what you are trying to do. You have to decide on your goal before anyone can answer clearly. This is why this has gone on so long. We've been trying to determine what the goal is, that's why I dug into your work situation to help to find out what the goal is.
I didn't read the all the posts, but if this is the case, then IPSEC all network communications would be a great start.
Sort of. But what we REALLY determined is that he has one, and only one solid requirement... that he has to move to static IPs. The desire for security was a misunderstanding he had based on something he thought that they were implying with the requirement, but it was incorrect and not what it said (and definitely not what it implied.) The only answer that doesn't risk his job is going to static IPs. The goal for security is his own personal one and not one from the audit or his boss. The demand for static IPs is from the auditor and his boss. That's the task he's required to do.
Not really. This is what was stated:
I don't know the actual question they ask but here is the text from the relevant section of the suggested practices from the same company:
Static IP Address Assignment
Manually assigning an IP address to a device which will not change automatically. This aids in networm management, but it also improves security by preventing devices introuced to the network from automatically being assigned an IP adddresses and other required network information.
Standards Mapping:
Control Type: (Project)
NIST Cybersecurity Framework: PR.AC-4
NIST 800-53 Mapping: AC-02, AC-03, IA-02, IA-04
Control Class: TechnicalSuggested practices are not directives.
They are when they ding you on an audit for it and you are required to pass the audit. That makes it a requirement regardless of how it is written.
Because this was the concern:
One of the security concerns that was brought up to me now was that anyone can plug their laptop into an open network jack and get an IP address and my boss is trying to get me to assign everything static again.
The concern was not that everything wasn't static. That was suggested and the boss (most likely out of fear from the auditors) just went along with it. The requirement is not static and they could not legally fail because everything isn't static.
What does "legally fail" mean here? The boss and the auditor stated that their goals were static. Dave is free to argue that that's crazy, but he has to do so. As it stands, both parties to which he has to answer currently have stated clearly that they want static addresses not some result that results from that.
They are legally required to do these audits.
Well I work at a financial institution and we have regular audits and exams and one of the things that has been asked in the past is if the auditor can plug their laptop into a jack and get an IP address. If yes, then we get a mark.
We have the same type of audits and are legally required to do so.
The auditors did not state that. It was a suggested practice. That in no way means that's what the auditors are requiring.
You are working from information that the rest of us do not have. We only know that he was audited and that they agreed with his boss that static was what they wanted. Anything about legal requirements, legally needing to meet some standard, etc. is all information we are not privy to.
If he is required to pass this part of the audit, then "suggested" means required, no matter how you look at it. To pass he has to meet the suggestion.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
@stacksofplates said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
@scottalanmiller said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
@stacksofplates said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
@scottalanmiller said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
@stacksofplates said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
@scottalanmiller said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
@tim_g said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
@scottalanmiller said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
@dave247 said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
@tim_g said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
Wtf how are there 132 posts? Just noticed. I can't read all those...
Don't. Just tell me how the eff can I easily restrict non-company computers from getting a DHCP address.
But we figured out that that was not your goal. You keep going back and forth between three different things....
- How do you secure your network (never asked, but you stated was your goal.)
- How do restrict DHCP in the way stated here and in the OP.
- How to meet the requirements of the audit.
There totally different goals. You haven't settled on one. Every time someone asks, you state a different one as being what you are trying to do. You have to decide on your goal before anyone can answer clearly. This is why this has gone on so long. We've been trying to determine what the goal is, that's why I dug into your work situation to help to find out what the goal is.
I didn't read the all the posts, but if this is the case, then IPSEC all network communications would be a great start.
Sort of. But what we REALLY determined is that he has one, and only one solid requirement... that he has to move to static IPs. The desire for security was a misunderstanding he had based on something he thought that they were implying with the requirement, but it was incorrect and not what it said (and definitely not what it implied.) The only answer that doesn't risk his job is going to static IPs. The goal for security is his own personal one and not one from the audit or his boss. The demand for static IPs is from the auditor and his boss. That's the task he's required to do.
Not really. This is what was stated:
I don't know the actual question they ask but here is the text from the relevant section of the suggested practices from the same company:
Static IP Address Assignment
Manually assigning an IP address to a device which will not change automatically. This aids in networm management, but it also improves security by preventing devices introuced to the network from automatically being assigned an IP adddresses and other required network information.
Standards Mapping:
Control Type: (Project)
NIST Cybersecurity Framework: PR.AC-4
NIST 800-53 Mapping: AC-02, AC-03, IA-02, IA-04
Control Class: TechnicalSuggested practices are not directives.
They are when they ding you on an audit for it and you are required to pass the audit. That makes it a requirement regardless of how it is written.
Because this was the concern:
One of the security concerns that was brought up to me now was that anyone can plug their laptop into an open network jack and get an IP address and my boss is trying to get me to assign everything static again.
The concern was not that everything wasn't static. That was suggested and the boss (most likely out of fear from the auditors) just went along with it. The requirement is not static and they could not legally fail because everything isn't static.
What does "legally fail" mean here? The boss and the auditor stated that their goals were static. Dave is free to argue that that's crazy, but he has to do so. As it stands, both parties to which he has to answer currently have stated clearly that they want static addresses not some result that results from that.
They are legally required to do these audits.
Well I work at a financial institution and we have regular audits and exams and one of the things that has been asked in the past is if the auditor can plug their laptop into a jack and get an IP address. If yes, then we get a mark.
We have the same type of audits and are legally required to do so.
The auditors did not state that. It was a suggested practice. That in no way means that's what the auditors are requiring.
You are working from information that the rest of us do not have. We only know that he was audited and that they agreed with his boss that static was what they wanted. Anything about legal requirements, legally needing to meet some standard, etc. is all information we are not privy to.
If he is required to pass this part of the audit, then "suggested" means required, no matter how you look at it. To pass he has to meet the suggestion.
Bah I had a whole thing written out and lost it somehow.
They are at least required legally to have a SOX audit (even we are). Any outside auditors are going to be using NIST (which is why those controls were referenced).
Suggested does not mean that in any way. Even in our DoD audits from DSS that's not true and those are directly from the government themselves.
-
@stacksofplates said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
@scottalanmiller said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
@stacksofplates said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
@scottalanmiller said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
@stacksofplates said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
@scottalanmiller said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
@stacksofplates said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
@scottalanmiller said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
@tim_g said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
@scottalanmiller said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
@dave247 said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
@tim_g said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
Wtf how are there 132 posts? Just noticed. I can't read all those...
Don't. Just tell me how the eff can I easily restrict non-company computers from getting a DHCP address.
But we figured out that that was not your goal. You keep going back and forth between three different things....
- How do you secure your network (never asked, but you stated was your goal.)
- How do restrict DHCP in the way stated here and in the OP.
- How to meet the requirements of the audit.
There totally different goals. You haven't settled on one. Every time someone asks, you state a different one as being what you are trying to do. You have to decide on your goal before anyone can answer clearly. This is why this has gone on so long. We've been trying to determine what the goal is, that's why I dug into your work situation to help to find out what the goal is.
I didn't read the all the posts, but if this is the case, then IPSEC all network communications would be a great start.
Sort of. But what we REALLY determined is that he has one, and only one solid requirement... that he has to move to static IPs. The desire for security was a misunderstanding he had based on something he thought that they were implying with the requirement, but it was incorrect and not what it said (and definitely not what it implied.) The only answer that doesn't risk his job is going to static IPs. The goal for security is his own personal one and not one from the audit or his boss. The demand for static IPs is from the auditor and his boss. That's the task he's required to do.
Not really. This is what was stated:
I don't know the actual question they ask but here is the text from the relevant section of the suggested practices from the same company:
Static IP Address Assignment
Manually assigning an IP address to a device which will not change automatically. This aids in networm management, but it also improves security by preventing devices introuced to the network from automatically being assigned an IP adddresses and other required network information.
Standards Mapping:
Control Type: (Project)
NIST Cybersecurity Framework: PR.AC-4
NIST 800-53 Mapping: AC-02, AC-03, IA-02, IA-04
Control Class: TechnicalSuggested practices are not directives.
They are when they ding you on an audit for it and you are required to pass the audit. That makes it a requirement regardless of how it is written.
Because this was the concern:
One of the security concerns that was brought up to me now was that anyone can plug their laptop into an open network jack and get an IP address and my boss is trying to get me to assign everything static again.
The concern was not that everything wasn't static. That was suggested and the boss (most likely out of fear from the auditors) just went along with it. The requirement is not static and they could not legally fail because everything isn't static.
What does "legally fail" mean here? The boss and the auditor stated that their goals were static. Dave is free to argue that that's crazy, but he has to do so. As it stands, both parties to which he has to answer currently have stated clearly that they want static addresses not some result that results from that.
They are legally required to do these audits.
Well I work at a financial institution and we have regular audits and exams and one of the things that has been asked in the past is if the auditor can plug their laptop into a jack and get an IP address. If yes, then we get a mark.
We have the same type of audits and are legally required to do so.
The auditors did not state that. It was a suggested practice. That in no way means that's what the auditors are requiring.
You are working from information that the rest of us do not have. We only know that he was audited and that they agreed with his boss that static was what they wanted. Anything about legal requirements, legally needing to meet some standard, etc. is all information we are not privy to.
If he is required to pass this part of the audit, then "suggested" means required, no matter how you look at it. To pass he has to meet the suggestion.
Bah I had a whole thing written out and lost it somehow.
They are at least required legally to have a SOX audit (even we are). Any outside auditors are going to be using NIST (which is why those controls were referenced).
Suggested does not mean that in any way. Even in our DoD audits from DSS that's not true and those are directly from the government themselves.
I've worked in SOX environments (which we do not know that this is, and have no reason to believe that it is, it's extremely unlikely) and we didn't have to have this kind of audit. SOX does require audits, but not this kind.
The issue here is that he's required to pass the audit, has nothing to do with SOX. You are adding outside information which is possible but neither likely nor stated, and changing the requirements because of that. The issue here is that he's supposed to follow this suggestion. That's it, over and done. What legal, SOX, or wording says isn't relevant.
If you are required to do what I suggest, and I suggest you have toast for breakfast, that makes you required to have toast for breakfast even if I only suggested it.
-
@stacksofplates said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
Suggested does not mean that in any way.
You keep skipping the "requirement" portion coming from his own company. So suggested sure does mean that.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
@stacksofplates said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
Suggested does not mean that in any way.
You keep skipping the "requirement" portion coming from his own company. So suggested sure does mean that.
Show where that was stated.
-
@stacksofplates said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
@scottalanmiller said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
@stacksofplates said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
Suggested does not mean that in any way.
You keep skipping the "requirement" portion coming from his own company. So suggested sure does mean that.
Show where that was stated.
It's the entire purpose of the thread.... to satisfy this one part of the audit. The thread itself is that this is required.
-
@dave247 said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
... my boss is trying to get me to assign everything static again.
Here is one spot. Right from the original post.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
@stacksofplates said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
@scottalanmiller said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
@stacksofplates said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
Suggested does not mean that in any way.
You keep skipping the "requirement" portion coming from his own company. So suggested sure does mean that.
Show where that was stated.
It's the entire purpose of the thread.... to satisfy this one part of the audit. The thread itself is that this is required.
Nope. Was never stated as a requirement. Only that the auditor suggested it and his boss just went along with what they said. He came here to get information on what to do.
-
@dave247 said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
...people are just reading lists that other people created and following instructions and trying to just "do their job" and keep their job. Security was/is a real concern, but it's been buried under the fluff of doing business and passing audits.
Here is more. Yes they would like other things, but their goal is passing the audit. And passing, here, requires following the suggestion.
So both the boss wants this done separately, and the goal passing the audit requires doing what the auditor suggests.
-
@stacksofplates said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
@scottalanmiller said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
@stacksofplates said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
@scottalanmiller said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
@stacksofplates said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
Suggested does not mean that in any way.
You keep skipping the "requirement" portion coming from his own company. So suggested sure does mean that.
Show where that was stated.
It's the entire purpose of the thread.... to satisfy this one part of the audit. The thread itself is that this is required.
Nope. Was never stated as a requirement. Only that the auditor suggested it and his boss just went along with what they said. He came here to get information on what to do.
I've not heard anything about the boss going along with anything. The boss wants it, I've not noticed anything about the boss wanting it because of the audit, not do I see how that matters. The auditor wants it, the boss wants it, the goal is to pass audit... what more do you need?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
@dave247 said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
...people are just reading lists that other people created and following instructions and trying to just "do their job" and keep their job. Security was/is a real concern, but it's been buried under the fluff of doing business and passing audits.
Here is more. Yes they would like other things, but their goal is passing the audit. And passing, here, requires following the suggestion.
So both the boss wants this done separately, and the goal passing the audit requires doing what the auditor suggests.
but it's been buried under the fluff of doing business and passing audits
Any my point was you can pass the audit without setting everything statically. It's not a requirement.
-
@stacksofplates said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
He came here to get information on what to do.
Actually he stated twice in the OP that he was NOT here for advice and only wanted an answer on how to implement one thing, not anything connected to a goal. But we worked past that. But this is explicitly what he stated he didn't come here for.
That said, we came up with both real world solutions AND dealt with "what he needs to do given the requirements of passing audit and not disobeying the boss."
He had originally thought that DHCP and static could co-exist. That misconception led to the original post. But now that he knows that the boss and auditor want something explicit, not a general idea of IP assignment, it makes all of that stuff null and void. He's stuck either doing what they recommend, or fighting it.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
@stacksofplates said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
@scottalanmiller said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
@stacksofplates said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
@scottalanmiller said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
@stacksofplates said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
Suggested does not mean that in any way.
You keep skipping the "requirement" portion coming from his own company. So suggested sure does mean that.
Show where that was stated.
It's the entire purpose of the thread.... to satisfy this one part of the audit. The thread itself is that this is required.
Nope. Was never stated as a requirement. Only that the auditor suggested it and his boss just went along with what they said. He came here to get information on what to do.
I've not heard anything about the boss going along with anything. The boss wants it, I've not noticed anything about the boss wanting it because of the audit, not do I see how that matters. The auditor wants it, the boss wants it, the goal is to pass audit... what more do you need?
The boss obviously didn't care before the audit or it would have been that way. Then the audit happened. Now the boss is going along with the auditors suggestion.
-
@stacksofplates said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
@scottalanmiller said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
@dave247 said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
...people are just reading lists that other people created and following instructions and trying to just "do their job" and keep their job. Security was/is a real concern, but it's been buried under the fluff of doing business and passing audits.
Here is more. Yes they would like other things, but their goal is passing the audit. And passing, here, requires following the suggestion.
So both the boss wants this done separately, and the goal passing the audit requires doing what the auditor suggests.
but it's been buried under the fluff of doing business and passing audits
Any my point was you can pass the audit without setting everything statically. It's not a requirement.
You're right, the requirement is to not hand out DHCP addresses to anything that connects.
So lets just turn of the switches and servers and go home!
-
@stacksofplates said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
@scottalanmiller said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
@dave247 said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
...people are just reading lists that other people created and following instructions and trying to just "do their job" and keep their job. Security was/is a real concern, but it's been buried under the fluff of doing business and passing audits.
Here is more. Yes they would like other things, but their goal is passing the audit. And passing, here, requires following the suggestion.
So both the boss wants this done separately, and the goal passing the audit requires doing what the auditor suggests.
but it's been buried under the fluff of doing business and passing audits
Any my point was you can pass the audit without setting everything statically. It's not a requirement.
Given that the ONLY thing we know about the audit is that it suggests static for no reason other than that that is what they want, how can you say that?
-
@stacksofplates said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
@scottalanmiller said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
@stacksofplates said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
@scottalanmiller said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
@stacksofplates said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
@scottalanmiller said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
@stacksofplates said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
Suggested does not mean that in any way.
You keep skipping the "requirement" portion coming from his own company. So suggested sure does mean that.
Show where that was stated.
It's the entire purpose of the thread.... to satisfy this one part of the audit. The thread itself is that this is required.
Nope. Was never stated as a requirement. Only that the auditor suggested it and his boss just went along with what they said. He came here to get information on what to do.
I've not heard anything about the boss going along with anything. The boss wants it, I've not noticed anything about the boss wanting it because of the audit, not do I see how that matters. The auditor wants it, the boss wants it, the goal is to pass audit... what more do you need?
The boss obviously didn't care before the audit or it would have been that way. Then the audit happened. Now the boss is going along with the auditors suggestion.
This isn't good logic. We can't make that assumption, especially given that it WAS that way in the past.
I'm working from what is stated. You are working from loads of assumptions as to the source of the audit, the order of events, the legal requirements, etc. None of those are things that we know or can assume.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
@stacksofplates said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
@scottalanmiller said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
@dave247 said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
...people are just reading lists that other people created and following instructions and trying to just "do their job" and keep their job. Security was/is a real concern, but it's been buried under the fluff of doing business and passing audits.
Here is more. Yes they would like other things, but their goal is passing the audit. And passing, here, requires following the suggestion.
So both the boss wants this done separately, and the goal passing the audit requires doing what the auditor suggests.
but it's been buried under the fluff of doing business and passing audits
Any my point was you can pass the audit without setting everything statically. It's not a requirement.
Given that the ONLY thing we know about the audit is that it suggests static for no reason other than that that is what they want, how can you say that?
It doesn't suggest static for no reason. It suggests static because they assume that stops people from plugging in and getting an address on the network. Again, it's a suggestion not a requirement.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
@stacksofplates said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
@scottalanmiller said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
@stacksofplates said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
@scottalanmiller said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
@stacksofplates said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
@scottalanmiller said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
@stacksofplates said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
Suggested does not mean that in any way.
You keep skipping the "requirement" portion coming from his own company. So suggested sure does mean that.
Show where that was stated.
It's the entire purpose of the thread.... to satisfy this one part of the audit. The thread itself is that this is required.
Nope. Was never stated as a requirement. Only that the auditor suggested it and his boss just went along with what they said. He came here to get information on what to do.
I've not heard anything about the boss going along with anything. The boss wants it, I've not noticed anything about the boss wanting it because of the audit, not do I see how that matters. The auditor wants it, the boss wants it, the goal is to pass audit... what more do you need?
The boss obviously didn't care before the audit or it would have been that way. Then the audit happened. Now the boss is going along with the auditors suggestion.
This isn't good logic. We can't make that assumption, especially given that it WAS that way in the past.
I'm working from what is stated. You are working from loads of assumptions as to the source of the audit, the order of events, the legal requirements, etc. None of those are things that we know or can assume.
No, we go through multiple of these per year and this is how it works.
-
@stacksofplates said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
@scottalanmiller said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
@stacksofplates said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
@scottalanmiller said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
@stacksofplates said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
@scottalanmiller said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
@stacksofplates said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
@scottalanmiller said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
@stacksofplates said in Best way to secure DHCP so that not just anyone can plug their PC in and get an IP? (Windows DC with DHCP):
Suggested does not mean that in any way.
You keep skipping the "requirement" portion coming from his own company. So suggested sure does mean that.
Show where that was stated.
It's the entire purpose of the thread.... to satisfy this one part of the audit. The thread itself is that this is required.
Nope. Was never stated as a requirement. Only that the auditor suggested it and his boss just went along with what they said. He came here to get information on what to do.
I've not heard anything about the boss going along with anything. The boss wants it, I've not noticed anything about the boss wanting it because of the audit, not do I see how that matters. The auditor wants it, the boss wants it, the goal is to pass audit... what more do you need?
The boss obviously didn't care before the audit or it would have been that way. Then the audit happened. Now the boss is going along with the auditors suggestion.
This isn't good logic. We can't make that assumption, especially given that it WAS that way in the past.
I'm working from what is stated. You are working from loads of assumptions as to the source of the audit, the order of events, the legal requirements, etc. None of those are things that we know or can assume.
No, we go through multiple of these per year and this is how it works.
But what you do has NOTHING to do with the situation. You have SarBox, the OP likely does not. You have audit requirements, the OP likely does not, you don't have a rule saying that you need to do this, the OP does.
Your personal experience doesn't apply here. It's not that your experience is wrong, it's just that the auditor, rules, audit, legality, and regulations that you are using as your experience we have no reason to believe exist here or specifically know them to be different.
This is like telling the OP that he always has to go north to go to Walmart because Walmart is north of your house. It's not that you are wrong about where Walmart is compared to you, it's just that that information doesn't apply to the OP unless he lives next to you.
