PHEONIX
NETWORKING CARD
INTERBUS
IBS ISA FC IT
ITEM IS IN GOOD CONDITION
SOLD AS SHOWN; AS IS
Thursday, 18 June 2009
Wi-Fi is an extension of the LAN to the wireless domain (WLAN). Wi-Fi technology has simplified the installation and distribution of networking infrastructure by replacing wire cabling with low-power radio waves. Because it is standards-based, it is widely available and integrates seamlessly with existing Ethernet networks. For wireless data acquisition, Wi-Fi is an easy way to tie into existing corporate infrastructure without special gateways or converters. With the most current ratified IEEE standard, IEEE 802.11g, it also provides ample bandwidth (54 Mb/s) for streaming dynamic waveform data.
Figure 3. Adding Wi-Fi connectivity to a wired network requires a wireless access point, such as the NI WAP-3701.
Security is foremost on the minds of network administrators when implementing Wi-Fi in a corporate environment. Because Wi-Fi transmits data over radio waves, there are few means for physically restricting network access. Generally speaking, there are three levels of wireless security, all of which are supported by NI Wi-Fi DAQ. The three levels are Wired Equivalent Privacy (WEP), Wi-Fi Protected Access (WPA), and Wi-Fi Protected Access 2 (WPA2, also known as IEEE 802.11i). WEP is considered too weak for almost all IT networks; most use WPA or WPA2 instead. The differences between these standards are in how they implement the two key components of wireless security – encryption and authentication.
Security Standard | Encryption | Authentication |
WEP | 64-bit key (RC4 cipher) | 64-bit key |
WPA | 128-bit TKIP (RC4 cipher) | 802.1X and EAP |
WPA2 (IEEE 802.11i) | 128-bit AES | 802.1X and EAP |
Table 1. There are three levels of Wi-Fi network security to consider when implementing Wi-Fi in a corporate environment.
     |
|
ADVANCED SECURITY
MultiNet provides several layers of security to protect against unauthorised network access and intruders from the Internet.
SECURE COPY PROTOCOL (SCP):
MultiNet 4.4 increases security with SCP support. SCP allows SSH users to perform secure file transfers across an insecure network. SCP utilises the SSH server and client as a basis for accomplishing this advanced level of security.
SCP performs similar functions to SFTP (Secure FTP) such as copying files in both directions, and optionally deleting files after they are copied.
SECURE SHELL V1, V2 (SSH):
SSH is a protocol that provides strong authentication and secure, encrypted communications over insecure channels. This transport layer protocol provides server authentication, confidentiality, and integrity with perfect forward secrecy.
MultiNet v4.4 offers SSH v1 and v2 servers and clients and the ability for users to simultaneously use both protocols. The new SSH v2 uses the more secure host-based authentication exchange called Diffie Helmann. Diffie Helmann provides additional security by eliminating the need for exchanging private keys over the wire. It also allows users the advantage of continually authenticating throughout the entire session. Security and flexibility are achieved through multiple levels of user authentication and strong encryption algorithms, including IDEA, DES, 3DES, ARCFOUR, Blowfish, Twofish, and CAST 128.
INCOMING/OUTGOING ACCESS RESTRICTIONS:
MultiNet's access restrictions provides an additional method of security to the network. MultiNet's outgoing access restrictions provide systems administrators with additional security by controlling those applications local users can or cannot access (such as restricting Web surfing or access to services like FTP or TELNET). MultiNet also imposes incoming restrictions on the remote hosts' access to local services.
TOKEN AUTHENTICATION:
MultiNet's token authentication provides a cost-effective, flexible security solution for protecting a user's OpenVMS systems from the Internet, and is the only OpenVMS solution that supports a variety of tokens.
PACKET FILTERING AND ADDITIONAL SECURITY LAYERS:
MultiNet's packet filtering capability complements existing firewall security by providing an additional security layer on internal networks. It can prevent your site from receiving datagrams from certain networks or hosts. Datagrams can be filtered by protocol (IP, ICMP, UDP, or TCP), source and destination address, or source and destination port.
The TCP/IP suite uses encapsulation to provide abstraction of protocols and services. Such encapsulation usually is aligned with the division of the protocol suite into layers of general functionality. In general, an application (the highest level of the model) uses a set of protocols to send its data down the layers, being further encapsulated at each level.
This may be illustrated by an example network scenario, in which two Internet host computers communicate across local network boundaries constituted by their internetworking gateways (routers).
The functional groups of protocols and methods are the Application Layer, the Transport Layer, the Internet Layer, and the Link Layer(RFC 1122). It should be noted that this model was not intended to be a rigid reference model into which new protocols have to fit in order to be accepted as a standard.
The following table provides some examples of the protocols grouped in their respective layers.
Application
DNS, TFTP, TLS/SSL, FTP, Gopher, HTTP, IMAP, IRC, NNTP, POP3, SIP, SMTP,SMPP, SNMP, SSH, Telnet,Echo, RTP, PNRP, rlogin, ENRP
Routing protocols like BGP and RIP which run over TCP/UDP, may also be considered part of the Internet Layer.
Transport
TCP, UDP, DCCP, SCTP, IL, RUDP, RSVP
Internet
OSPF for IPv4 was initially considered IP layer protocol since it runs per IP-subnet, but has been placed on the Link since RFC 2740.
Monday, 15 June 2009
THE INVITATION:
This Rolling Review focuses on Web collaboration products. To qualify, products must address data security, storage, and accessibility. We'll evaluate how they balance privacy, productivity, and security and test ease of installation and use, overall functionality, management, features, and price. Each vendor must provide pricing for a collaboration scenario in which multiple users work together on a data-heavy project.
THE VENDORS:
For this Rolling Review, we invited 10 companies that provide Web collaboration as a service or a product: CallWave, Central Desktop, Digital Samba, Google, Jive Software, Microsoft, Novell, PBwiki, Polycom, and Voce Communications.
THE PREMISE :
Rolling Reviews present a comprehensive look at a hot technology category, beginning with market analysis and wrapping up with a synopsis of our findings. Our extended testing span lets us accommodate today's accelerated revision cycles and focus our attention on individual products, while maintaining a consistent test bed.
THE TEST BED:
At our Phil Hippensteel Associates partner labs, we'll manage a collaboration project over time to evaluate ease of use, overall effectiveness, and security management, along with where project data is stored and who can access it. To test each collaboration tool, we'll open an administrator account, provision and deprovision users, assign people to groups, and administer rights (upload/download documents, make changes, share information inside and outside the corporate domain). Wearing our end-user hats, we'll put collaboration features through their paces.
As companies look to cut costs and manage projects involving far-flung staff, many are investigating wikis, file-sharing services, and other consumer technologies to deliver Web-based collaboration inexpensively.
Bringing these tools into a corporate environment presents thorny issues, however. Chief among them is security: IT is justifiably wary of giving users privileges such as directly editing Web content or uploading files when their companies lack the technology and policies to enable safe Web 2.0 use.
Bringing these tools into a corporate environment presents thorny issues, however. Chief among them is security: IT is justifiably wary of giving users privileges such as directly editing Web content or uploading files when their companies lack the technology and policies to enable safe Web 2.0 use.
But are there cost-effective collaboration tools that you don't have to just say no to? In this Rolling Review, we'll find out. To get a good look at a cross section of available apps, we invited a range of vendors, from major players like Microsoft, Novell, and Google to smaller companies such as Central Desktop, Socialtext, and CallWave. As we test these tools at our Phil Hippensteel Associates partner labs, we'll evaluate how well they address these key considerations:
Who has the data?
Trade secrets, customer lists, and competitive intelligence must be carefully guarded. Violations of regulations and privacy laws are always a concern when data is in the hands of others. Whoever controls the data will be responsible for it and will be held accountable for any data that might be evidence in court cases.
How secure is it?
Collaboration services track the progress of projects while integrating e-mail, schedules, and new contacts with local databases. These tools require users to send and receive files, images, and Java scripts to corporate computers, possibly from peer devices that are outside IT's control.
Antivirus and intrusion-detection software can spot inappropriate e-mail attachments, but finding malware embedded in HTTP traffic is more difficult.
What are the costs?
Web 2.0 collaboration tools usually have a monthly or annual fee and relatively low up-front costs. Additional expenses are likely to occur once the tool is in use. For example, if you configure the components of a large project only to discover that your design is bulky and difficult to use, you'll incur the cost of the time needed to redesign the collaboration. It can be difficult to correct these problems once data has been stored. Our Rolling Review will look at the products' flexibility to avoid this pitfall. Training costs are a related issue. As we test these tools we'll consider whether they are easy to learn and use.
How's the support?
Collaboration tools and services have to play well with other applications like ERP systems and desktop office software. Quick responses to integration questions will be crucial. This may be especially true for collaboration products and services because they may not have been developed with integration as a high priority.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
