|
Home »
Networking
» Small Business and Home Networking
Summary: Be it tenants or children, it's common to have machines on your network that you can't trust. A secure solution involves setting up another network.
There are a few issues here, some of which are common and have standard solutions, which it sounds like you've already implemented. However protecting you from your tenant, your tenant from you, and for that matter all your tenants from each other gets ... well, things get interesting. • Let's start with what you're already doing correctly: password protecting the wireless connection. As long as that router is configured to use WPA encryption and not WEP, that should prevent random people from connecting to your network when they are in range. Make sure also that you change the administrative password on the router itself. The defaults are well known, and if you don't change it any of your tenants could gain administrative access to the router and do all sorts of nasty things with it. Finally, as to those other 8 wireless networks that appear in range: just don't connect to them. Now, let's look at protecting you and your tenants. • First, let's diagram what you've described:
In fact, I'll expand that a little to a more general case:
As you can see, the internet comes into the router, where it's then shared with both your computer via a hardwired connection, and with one or more tenant computers over wireless. This is a perfectly acceptable solution to sharing an internet connection, and is an extremely common configuration in homes and offices. The problem is simply this: it assumes that everything on the local network is trustworthy. To put it simply, a router used in this fashion protects one side, the local network, from the other side, the internet. It does not provide any protection between equipment on the same side. By that I mean that the router does not protect machines on the local network from each other. It assumes that they can all be completely trusted. "The problem is simply this: it assumes that everything on the local
network is trustworthy."
In your case, that's a bad assumption. Tenant A's computer could, for example, become infected with a virus that could then migrate to Tenant B's computer or to yours. Or, even more worrisome, they could actually purposely attempt to perform a malicious act. Any time you have a collection of computers that share an internet connection but can still not be trusted, you need to take extra steps. And by "not trusted" I mean things like being operated by tenants whose activities or expertise you have no knowledge of, or even your own children whose inexperience you're all too well aware of. You need to protect yourself in either case. In a case like this the assumption you need to make is very simple: assume your computer is connected directly to the internet, and take appropriate steps. Even though you're connected behind a router, assume the worst and pretend you're not. That means either making sure that everyone has appropriate firewall and other security software installed on all machines, or devising a hardware based solution. And what's my first reaction when I hear that someone is connected directly to the internet? Install a router. Or, in this case, install another router. There are two approaches, depending on what kind of internet connectivity you've been given by your ISP. • Approach One: Your ISP will give you more than one IP address. In this case we use a hub (or a switch) to "split" the internet in two before attaching a router.
In this configuration you have completely isolated yourself from your tenants. Their machines can't see your machines, and vice versa. You're totally protected from anything that they might try to do. But note that by putting all the tenants behind a single router, they are once again unprotected from each other. A more complete solution might be something like this:
Here we've installed a router for each tenant. What this does is create a private and protected network for each tenant, completely isolated from each other. Each wireless network would have its own unique ID and password, shared only with the tenant that is supposed to be using it. Personally, that's a little over the top (though you'd be considered a great landlord for providing this level of connectivity). A much more common approach is to provide a "naked" wired connection to each tenant, and let them install their own router as needed. The diagram is identical to the previous one, the only difference is in where the router might be physically located, and who actually provides it. All of the preceding assumes that your ISP will hand out more than one IP address. The result is that each router is granted it's own, unique IP address on the internet. The following scenario is actually slightly more common. Approach Two: Your ISP will give you only one IP address. In a nutshell, the approach here is to replace the hub that's been "splitting" the internet with another router.
The function of what I've labeled the "Internet Sharing Router" is simply that: to share the internet connection and the single IP address that your location has been given. Each of the next level routers get a unique local IP address on the tiny local network that exists only between the routers. Each of those second level routers then creates a unique, and once again private and protected, local area network for the machines connected to it. It's tempting to think that all these routers are not needed - that it's overkill - but that's simply not true, from either a functional, or a security perspective:
All this security comes at a price. What we've created results in something called "double NATting" where the path from any one computer to the internet traverses two NAT routers. That can interfere with some communications protocols, mostly peer-to-peer services. "Port forwarding" becomes, if not a nightmare at least a very bad dream, as ports would now have to be forwarded at two routers: first at the sharing router, and then again at the local second level router. But for basic operations like the web and email, this scenario works, and works quite well. • Other Solutions There are other solutions, but I focus on the two presented here as perhaps the most inexpensive and conceptually simple of the lot. There are higher-end routers that can actually do everything the collection of hubs and routers above do, in a single device. They can be extensively configured to share a single IP address (without double NATting), and protect sub-networks connected to the router from each other. In fact, this is what you'll usually see in larger installations and corporations. The downside to this approach is simply cost and complexity. Purchasing, connecting and configuring consumer-grade hubs, switches and routers is well within the means of most average computer users. The same is decidedly not true for the higher-end solutions, where you really do want a professional to install and maintain the networking equipment. Related:
• Recent Comments
Thanks for providing the diagrams. Makes it so much easier to understand the concepts behind NATting, double NATting, etc. Posted by: Mary at May 6, 2008 04:53 AMI really disagree with you on this one Leo. Buying an additional router for each connected computer is an extremely expensive solution when good firewall software will suffice and do exactly the same thing. Routers provide an incoming firewall by the intrinsic nature of using NAT (as you've pointed out in other articles), but you don't need to buy a router if all you need is a firewall--that can be accomplished with good firewall software, and some decent firewall programs are available even for free. Of course it could be argued that a hardware-based firewall could be considered more bullet-proof than software-based firewalls since they are virtually impervious to malware, but if you have good firewall software that hasn't been compromised by malware that all ready exists your computer, then a software-based fireall is JUST AS GOOD as being behind a router for all practical purposes. How can you make your readers believe they need a router for every single computer on their LAN, in addition to their router that connects them to the internet? That is an extremely expensive solution that is unnecessary. Would you mind explaining why you think spending all that money on additional routers is justified over using good firewall software? I think protecting yourself with decent firewall software is adequate for 99.9% of the average computer users out there. I think you are way out-of-line on your advice this time, Leo. Posted by: John at May 6, 2008 06:23 AMIn regards to John's comment, that is correct if it were just 1 family and 1 person has control or access to all computers...but in a landlord tenant situation, where the landlord has tenants connecting and does not know, and may not be able to legally confirm if they have a firewall, the hardware solution appears to me to be the better one. Posted by: jeffrey at May 6, 2008 11:21 AM-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- As Jeffrey pointed out, I'm not suggesting this for a home In *some cases* it might be appropriate for the home: But if you can trust all the computers behind your single But I'm no landlord :-). Thanks, Leo
iD8DBQFIIM5uCMEe9B/8oqERAlITAKCMN52F6XhQb4WlwOOqJRBJPMku8ACdGGPB The fatal flaw in John's view is not taking into account the scope of things. As already pointed out, we are talking about a network with MANY users (ie tennant rooms) that we want to assume no level of trust among them. The problem with software firewalls is that they can be disabled fairly easily, even accidentally by...shall we say "less than informed" computer users. So basically with a software firewall approach you can urge your tennants to use them but you can never be 100% sure they are using them and using them correctly. So to sum up, Leo's multiple router approach is very good advice for the given situation. Posted by: Brent at May 7, 2008 06:49 AMI don’t know why you guys are making short story too long. Simple solution for this scenario is just remove the tick mark ‘File And Printer Sharing For Microsoft Network’ under Local Area Connection Properties.And see, nobody can access your machine. Posted by: Amjad Yusuf at May 7, 2008 11:20 PMEven I think this solution is an overkill, Leo. A good firewall software can keep you safe 99% of the time. Just for the rest 1%, why would you put so many more dollars in buying other routers? And as you pointed out, this will interfere with p2p softwares, causing troubles. A good solution could be, know your tenants well! Another thing we are forgetting here is that the second level routers need to have a 'wired' connection with the main router! In most cases, this won't be possible. I don't think any landlord should wire up his apartment just so that he can give a 100% internet security to his tenants. The money equation just doesnt work here. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Amjad: Turning off File and Printer Sharing is NOT secure. Thanks, Leo
iD8DBQFIJd+3CMEe9B/8oqERAj9FAJ0Rb0EsmiMsPMnrPtfUCzaBaFs+kwCeMzZs -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Shreyas: please re-read my earlier response in comments to a Thanks, Leo
iD8DBQFIJeAvCMEe9B/8oqERAqy1AJ9BRiS82LGjS7sWc2ZepQBAb4a9rgCggRm4 Thanks for everyone's comments about my previous post. After more thought, I realized that having all the computers connected to one router (without additional routers to protect each computer) is actually justified because that is no worse than everyone having their own DSL connection; whether their computers communicate across the intranet set up by the router, or whether they communicate across the internet via each having their own DSL connection, it is virtually the same thing. The only difference is when they are connected via the internet by DSL modems, they are not vulnerable to ARP poisoning intranet attacks that could happen on the router WLAN. So I don't think it is the landlord's responsibility to shield them from each other when it is the same thing if they have their own DSL connection. The tenents must be responsible for their own safety. But I came across what may be a perfect solution for this scenario. I'm not sure which other routers have this option, but the Linksys WRT54G that I use has an advanced wireless setting called "AP isolation", that when turned on, prevents the computers on the WLAN from communicating with each other (while still allowing each of them to communicate with the router). That would isolate all the computers from each other and there would be no need to buy additional routers. What do you think, Leo? Seems like this is just the right solution for the scenario described in your article. Posted by: John at June 4, 2008 06:35 PMPost a comment on "How do I protect users on my network from each other?":
|
Archives Advertisers |
|