←back to thread

656 points EthanHeilman | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.207s | source
Show context
uncomputation ◴[] No.30103419[source]
> “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.

replies(10): >>30103496 #>>30103558 #>>30103584 #>>30103588 #>>30103623 #>>30104344 #>>30104669 #>>30105221 #>>30106774 #>>30106879 #
tptacek ◴[] No.30104669[source]
It is a risk. The discourse on VPNs is messy. It's true that you shouldn't rely solely on VPNs for access control to applications. It's also true that putting important services behind a VPN significantly reduces your attack surface, and also puts you in a position to get your arms around monitoring access.

The right way to set this stuff up is to have a strong modern VPN (preferably using WireGuard, because the implementations of every other VPN protocol are pretty unsafe) with SSO integration, and to have the applications exposed by that VPN also integrate with your SSO. Your users are generally on the VPN all day, and they're logging in to individual applications or SSH servers via Okta or Google.

"RIP VPNs" is not a great take.

replies(4): >>30104873 #>>30106246 #>>30106871 #>>30107049 #
SecurityLagoon ◴[] No.30104873[source]
Thanks for saying this. This was exactly my take. Saying goodbye to VPNs just completely ignores the risk of RCE vulnerabilities on your services. You can have a VPN that still brings you into a zero trust network.
replies(1): >>30104924 #
1. tptacek ◴[] No.30104924[source]
It does essentially define away the authentication bypass problem, which is a class of vulnerability we still regularly find in modern web applications. To say nothing of the fact that no human has ever implemented a SAML RP without a game-over vulnerability. Seems like a self-evidently bad plan.