Comments
Andrew Mitry on February 16th, 2007 at 7:39 am #
What lead you to choose the enterprise edition of SSL-Explorer versus the community edition?
Dave Mast on February 16th, 2007 at 9:05 am #
The biggest items for me were the extra security features, as well as the ability to authenticate via RADIUS and support RPC/HTTPS. Syncing the user database via LDAP and being able to map drive letters to the user’s PC was also a plus. Am I shooting over the top a little? We’ve made the decision, but I haven’t shelled out any cash yet. I can still be talked down.
Jason Powell on February 16th, 2007 at 8:50 pm #
You don’t need a server for your 2nd DC … they need little horsepower so any old PC sitting around would make a fine 2nd DC. In our case we have 1 DC on an older Optiplex and a 2nd inside a VM. I look forward to hearing about your ghetto experiment
Andrew Mitry on February 19th, 2007 at 4:21 pm #
I am guessing you are connecting issued laptops and not home machines via SSL-Explorer, correct? Right now we use SSL-Explorer to allow staff and volunteers to remote desktop and access file shares via the web interface from personal machines. If we issue them a laptop, we use the Cisco VPN client for full connectivity. In the absence of something like the Cisco VPN client the additional features of the enterprise edition make sense.
Dave Mast on February 19th, 2007 at 5:00 pm #
Actually most of the benefit would go towards the home user. We don’t have that many issued laptops in curculation. I wasn’t planning on using the VPN server that is included in pfSense (the firewall we’re using), but with what you’re saying, it’s making more sense to do so. (Sometimes my logic works a little slow). Like I said, we haven’t placed an actual order yet, so I’m going to make some time to sit and think about this. I sure appreciate your input on this, Andrew.
Andrew Mitry on February 19th, 2007 at 9:58 pm #
I would caution against mapping drive letters and allowing Outlook Access on machines out of your control, I think there is too high a probability to be compromised by viruses or spyware. Allowing access through remote desktop and web based file shares puts in a nice layer of security. I may be overdoing it, but I have seen way too many home computers loaded with all sorts of junk on them.
Dave Mast on February 19th, 2007 at 11:25 pm #
I would agree with you, I really don’t want to manage people’s home computers. Not for free, anyway. I would still like to do RPC/HTTP on our managed laptops so they don’t have to VPN in just to do mail. Are there vulnerability issues with OWA even through SSL simply because you’re using a browser? I’ve never really thought about OWA from that angle.
Andrew Mitry on February 20th, 2007 at 4:20 pm #
My understanding is that RPC/HTTPS connect outlook directly via SSL to Exchange, it does not use OWA, I could see this as a risk on unmanaged machines but should be fine on managed laptops. Accessing Standard OWA via https on unmanaged machines should be secure enough (if there is such a thing). BTW, we do have the community edition of SSL-Explorer authenticating against Active Directory without any problems. Post a comment
|
|
|
|
|
||