The Windows free 2003 Security Guide covers this in detail by describing how
to use ipsec filtering to secure domain controllers. Ipsec filtering uses an
ipsec policy that uses only permit and deny filter actions to act as a
packet filtering firewall instead of negotiation policy. The link below is
to the Windows 2003 Security Guide. There is also a challenge in dynamic RPC
port assignment that can be remedied with a registry entry to restrict ports
that will be used. The second link will give a basic idea of what
ports/protocols are used. --- Steve
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...displaylang=en
http://support.microsoft.com/default...en-us%3B179442
Windows NT
Client Port(s) Server Port Service
1024-65535/TCP 135/TCP RPC *
137/UDP 137/UDP NetBIOS Name
138/UDP 138/UDP NetBIOS Netlogon and Browsing
1024-65535/TCP 139/TCP NetBIOS Session
1024-65535/TCP 42/TCP WINS Replication
Windows 2000
For a mixed-mode domain with either Windows NT domain controllers or legacy
clients or trust relationship between two windows 2000 domain controllers
that are not in the same forest, all of the preceding ports for Windows NT
may need to be opened in addition to the following ports: Client Port(s)
Server Port Service
1024-65535/TCP 135/TCP RPC *
1024-65535/TCP/UDP 389/TCP/UDP LDAP
1024-65535/TCP 636/TCP LDAP SSL
1024-65535/TCP 3268/TCP LDAP GC
1024-65535/TCP 3269/TCP LDAP GC SSL
53,1024-65535/TCP/UDP 53/TCP/UDP DNS
1024-65535/TCP/UDP 88/TCP/UDP Kerberos
1024-65535/TCP 445/TCP SMB
"D Hartry" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:95B2E066-C844-4200-95F0-(E-Mail Removed)...
> Thanks Steve,
>
> I had almost come to this conclusion myself after searching on the web,
> but
> you have confirmed my suspicions. If possible, I would like to secure all
> traffic to DCs except for the logon etc traffic that needs to be
> unsecured. I
> think I need to set specific filters to allow unsecured domain membership
> traffic to/from DCs, but to secure all other traffic. I'm unsure exactly
> what
> traffic needs to be excluded. Can anyone tell me the protocols and ports
> used in 'domain membership' communications between DCs and domain
> computers?
>
> Thanks again,
> Dave
>
>
> "Steven L Umbach" wrote:
>
>> My guess is that since you enabled this at the domain level you are
>> causing
>> problems with domain computers accessing domain controllers since domain
>> controllers are also the kerberos key distribution centers. When you
>> configure an ipsec policy in the domain you must exempt domain
>> controllers
>> from ipsec negotiation. The is best done by adding a filter list to the
>> ipsec policy with a rule for permit action for all traffic to and from
>> domain controllers by their static IP addresses. It is best to not
>> configure
>> an ipsec policy at the domain level but instead do it at the OU level.
>> The
>> link below explains more. --- Steve
>>
>> http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;254949
>>
>> "D Hartry" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:9AB91D6A-8FC9-42E2-BB1A-(E-Mail Removed)...
>> >I have been fiddling with IPSec on a test network running in VMWare.
>> >I've
>> > not set up IPSec policies before so am unsure if I have done something
>> > stupid, perhaps made a mistake many have before me.....??
>> >
>> > I have a simple network of two servers (2003 Ent) and a client (XP Pro
>> > SP2).
>> > One server is an offline root standalone CA, the other a DC and
>> > enterprise
>> > sub-CA. This autoenrolls certificates to users and computers.
>> >
>> > I have enabled the Server (respond) policy for the entire domain, and
>> > with
>> > the policy active, I can log onto the DC from the XP client, but very
>> > slowly.
>> > From the DC I can monitor the SAs, they are being set up between the DC
>> > and
>> > the XP client.
>> >
>> > I get the same result whether I set the authentication for the policy
>> > to
>> > certificates or kerberos, I have tried with both.
>> >
>> > It might also be relevant that the DC is running the highsecdc.inf and
>> > the
>> > client the highsecws.inf security templates. I am going to try the
>> > scenairo
>> > without any security policy in place next.
>> >
>> > Any ideas why the IPSec policy would 'work' but slow the network down
>> > so
>> > much? eg The XP client has been logging on, at the 'applying computer
>> > settings'/'applying your personal settings' stage for about 5-10
>> > minutes
>> > now.
>> >
>> > I understand that there is an overhead associated with IPSec, but
>> > surely
>> > not
>> > this much? Even given the fact that the machines are VMs? BTW the
>> > physical
>> > machine this is all running on is an Athlon 2.2GHz with 512MB RAM, Big
>> > disks.
>> >
>> > --
>> > David Hartry
>>
>>
>>
Similar Threads
Linear Mode
