Security

last person joined: yesterday 

Forum to discuss Enterprise security using HPE Aruba Networking NAC solutions (ClearPass), Introspect, VIA, 360 Security Exchange, Extensions, and Policy Enforcement Firewall (PEF).
Expand all | Collapse all

Machine Authentication: Clarification for my benefit & Linux bypass machine auth with MSCHAPv2

This thread has been viewed 0 times
  • 1.  Machine Authentication: Clarification for my benefit & Linux bypass machine auth with MSCHAPv2

    Posted Apr 23, 2012 10:51 AM

    Chaps,

     

    If I enforce machine authentication, the does mean I make sure this part of DOT1X is honored before user authentication right?

     

    I ask this as it works great for Windows, but when I boot up into Linux, I disable cert check and use domain user id and password I get straight in.

     

    I don't have a proper PKI yet - but will do so soon (big job), in the meantime - anyone used device fingerprinting to Identify a non windows machine and stop it from using PEAP-MSCHAPv2?

     

    Thing is, the real troublemakers are going to be running linux I would think (esp. backtrack)

     

    Also the auth type is "8021x-User" and not "802.1x" - anyway of taking advantage of this categorization?

     

     

    Thanks a mill



  • 2.  RE: Machine Authentication: Clarification for my benefit & Linux bypass machine auth with MSCHAPv2

    Posted Apr 23, 2012 12:22 PM

    You can definitely take advantage of the "enforce machine auth" knob.  If a client tries to use his or her credentials WITHOUT first passing machine authentication (which would happen on Linux, Android, non-domain joined Windows machines, MacOS (assuming you haven't joined it to the domain), etc.) the client will be placed into the "machine authentication: default user role" under the dot1x profile.  If the client passes machine authentication, it will be placed in the "machine authentication: default machine role".  The clients that don't do machine authentication COULD be placed into a guest role.  Clients that pass machine auth and are waiting for user auth COULD be placed into a role that only lets them talk to the domain controllers and other necessary servers.

     

    The only issue you might encounter is the cache timeout.  When a client successfully machine auth's, the controller caches that MAC address for the configured time.  If the client doesn't perform a machine auth (which Windows only does on login and logout) during the cache timer, the controller deletes that MAC address.  If the client then tries to reauthenticate (without a login/logout), they will be placed into the "machine authentication: default user role" (since no machine auth was cached).   This can cause issues for valid users that come out of hibernate or sleep mode, undock from a wired connection, or turn their WLAN NIC on AFTER login.



  • 3.  RE: Machine Authentication: Clarification for my benefit & Linux bypass machine auth with MSCHAPv2

    Posted Apr 23, 2012 01:28 PM
    O,

    Great explanation. Given this is my first install of a measly 2000 users, I am going to side on the security. As for wake up and switching off, well, I guess a "please ask user to reboot" will sort that out. Which is what our HelpDesk say anyway.

    What's your view on cache timeout length?


  • 4.  RE: Machine Authentication: Clarification for my benefit & Linux bypass machine auth with MSCHAPv2

    Posted Apr 23, 2012 02:14 PM

    The cache time out is 24 hours by default.  That, to me, is too short.  BUT, you have to weigh the security risk against the users frustration.

     

    I think the timeout should be 3-4 days.  That way, a long weekend wont cause the cache to expire (assuming people reboot every day).  There is a way to do this with "netsh" commands (for the machine to reauth), but I am not much of a server or client expert, so I can't help with that (but I know it can be done).



  • 5.  RE: Machine Authentication: Clarification for my benefit & Linux bypass machine auth with MSCHAPv2

    Posted Apr 23, 2012 03:01 PM
    Sure, my call etc. good to hear views, always, and thanks a million. your argument seems sound to me and I'll make the call on how that suits my implementation. I can see the argument from both sides cheers