<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: Deployment Server Communication in Deployment Architecture</title>
    <link>https://community.splunk.com/t5/Deployment-Architecture/Deployment-Server-Communication/m-p/345820#M12855</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Having clients phone home to a single server which you can verify with a certificate is a far more secure means of operating than the inverse.&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;I think you should take the opportunity to explain to security how the DS/DC architecture works, and why their request would be counter productive from an overall security standpoint.&lt;BR /&gt;
 (ie, one remote system with which to confirm identity, versus hundreds or even thousands)&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 Dec 2017 13:52:48 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>nickhills</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2017-12-14T13:52:48Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Deployment Server Communication</title>
      <link>https://community.splunk.com/t5/Deployment-Architecture/Deployment-Server-Communication/m-p/345818#M12853</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi is it possible to turn the communication meaning rather than the forwarder is polling the deployment server, the deployment server is polling the forwarder if he needs new apps.  This is a request from security. &lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Dec 2017 13:24:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.splunk.com/t5/Deployment-Architecture/Deployment-Server-Communication/m-p/345818#M12853</guid>
      <dc:creator>wilhelmF</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-12-14T13:24:00Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Deployment Server Communication</title>
      <link>https://community.splunk.com/t5/Deployment-Architecture/Deployment-Server-Communication/m-p/345819#M12854</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Don't think it is possible. &lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;How does the deployment server know there is a new forwarder installed?&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Dec 2017 13:44:52 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.splunk.com/t5/Deployment-Architecture/Deployment-Server-Communication/m-p/345819#M12854</guid>
      <dc:creator>teunlaan</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-12-14T13:44:52Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Deployment Server Communication</title>
      <link>https://community.splunk.com/t5/Deployment-Architecture/Deployment-Server-Communication/m-p/345820#M12855</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Having clients phone home to a single server which you can verify with a certificate is a far more secure means of operating than the inverse.&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;I think you should take the opportunity to explain to security how the DS/DC architecture works, and why their request would be counter productive from an overall security standpoint.&lt;BR /&gt;
 (ie, one remote system with which to confirm identity, versus hundreds or even thousands)&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Dec 2017 13:52:48 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.splunk.com/t5/Deployment-Architecture/Deployment-Server-Communication/m-p/345820#M12855</guid>
      <dc:creator>nickhills</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-12-14T13:52:48Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Deployment Server Communication</title>
      <link>https://community.splunk.com/t5/Deployment-Architecture/Deployment-Server-Communication/m-p/345821#M12856</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;No.  The deployment server can not &lt;CODE&gt;push&lt;/CODE&gt; to forwarders.  The forwarders &lt;CODE&gt;pull&lt;/CODE&gt; from the deployment server.&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;If you need the opposite functionality you would need to look into using some other type of automated deployment management, potentially like Ansible or Puppet.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Dec 2017 16:18:58 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.splunk.com/t5/Deployment-Architecture/Deployment-Server-Communication/m-p/345821#M12856</guid>
      <dc:creator>micahkemp</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-12-14T16:18:58Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Deployment Server Communication</title>
      <link>https://community.splunk.com/t5/Deployment-Architecture/Deployment-Server-Communication/m-p/345822#M12857</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;In the context of the question i think the terms push/pull are confusing and become moot.&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;I think @wilhelmF is coming at this from the position: If a wouldbe miscreant could compromise the DS, he can onward compromise all the clients without further lateral movement - this is because the clients 'trust' the DS.&lt;BR /&gt;
On the other hand, by reversing the process, a single compromised client, can extend its reach no further, as no other clients nor deployment server trust it.&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;Puppet and Ansible still have the same security cascade issue as the DS, except the authentication is reversed - the server has to authenticate to prove it has appropriate permissions.&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;My comment above was to highlight that its not the direction of the push/pull which should be of concern, but the authentication and defence around those sensitive management assets. - whilst its always a good idea to lock your front door, don't be surprised if someone climbs through an open window. &lt;BR /&gt;
With this in mind, I know I would rather manage one house, rather than a whole street. &lt;span class="lia-unicode-emoji" title=":slightly_smiling_face:"&gt;🙂&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Dec 2017 16:38:43 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.splunk.com/t5/Deployment-Architecture/Deployment-Server-Communication/m-p/345822#M12857</guid>
      <dc:creator>nickhills</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-12-14T16:38:43Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

