Application or Software to detect or Block unmanaged swicthes
Christopher J. Wolff
cjwolff at nola.gov
Fri Jun 8 19:19:09 UTC 2018
If you are using a product like ISE/Forescout you could set up multiple layers of device identification prior to network authorization.
For example, a user would need to spoof the results of a legitimate device to match the results of:
-Domain machine/user Auth
It's simply a matter of dissecting the signatures of legitimate devices to the finest level of granularity and denying everything else.
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of David Hubbard
Sent: Friday, June 8, 2018 12:32 PM
To: nanog at nanog.org
Subject: Re: Application or Software to detect or Block unmanaged swicthes
This thread has piqued my curiosity on whether there'd be a way to detect a rogue access point, or proxy server with an inside and outside interface? Let's just say 802.1x is in place too to make it more interesting. For example, could employee X, who doesn't want their department to be back billed for more switch ports, go and get some reasonable wifi router, throw DD-WRT on it, and set up 802.1x client auth to the physical network using their credentials? They then let their staff wifi into it and the traffic is NAT'd. I'm sure anyone in a university setting has encountered this. Obviously policy can forbid, but any way to detect it other than seeing traffic patterns on a port not match historical once the other users have been combined onto it, or those other users' ports go down?
On 6/7/18, 10:18 AM, "NANOG on behalf of Mel Beckman" <nanog-bounces at nanog.org on behalf of mel at beckman.org> wrote:
When we do NIST-CSF audits, we run an SNMP NMS called Intermapper, which has a Layer-2 collection feature that identifies the number and MACs of devices on any given switch port. We export this list and cull out all the known managed switch links. Anything remaining that has more than one MAC per port is a potential violation that we can readily inspect. It’s not perfect, because an unmanaged switch might only have one device connected, in which case it wont be detected. You can also get false positives from hosts running virtualization, if the v-kernel generates synthetic MAC addresses. But it’s amazing how many times we find unmanaged switches squirreled away under desks or in ceilings.
> On Jun 7, 2018, at 4:54 AM, Jason Hellenthal <jhellenthal at dataix.net> wrote:
> As someone already stated the obvious answers, the slightly more difficult route to be getting a count of allowed devices and MAC addresses, then moving forward with something like ansible to poll the count of MAC’s on any given port ... of number higher than what’s allowed, suspend the port and send a notification to the appropriate parties.
> All in all though sounds like a really brash thing to do to your network team and will generally know and have a very good reason for doing so... but not all situations are created equally so good luck.
> The fact that there's a highway to Hell but only a stairway to Heaven says a lot about anticipated traffic volume.
>> On Jun 7, 2018, at 03:57, segs <michaelolusegunrufai at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hello All,
>> Please I have a very interesting scenario that I am on the lookout for a
>> solution for, We have instances where the network team of my company bypass
>> controls and processes when adding new switches to the network.
>> The right parameters that are required to be configured on the switches
>> inorder for the NAC solution deployed to have full visibility into end
>> points that connects to such switches are not usually configured.
>> This poses a problem for the security team as they dont have visibility
>> into such devices that connect to such switches on the NAC solution, the
>> network guys usually connect the new switches to the trunk port and they
>> have access to all VLANs.
>> Is there a solution that can detect new or unmanaged switches on the
>> network, and block such devices or if there is a solution that block users
>> that connect to unmanaged switches on the network even if those users have
>> domain PCs.
>> Anticipating your speedy response.
>> Thank You!
More information about the NANOG