작성
·
194
0
혹시 아래 문제에 대해 도움을 주실 수 있을까요? 잘 이해가 되지 않아서요..;;
Your company decides to use Amazon S3 to augment its on-premises data store. Instead of using the company's highly controlled, on-premises Internet gateway, a Direct Connect connection is ordered to provide high bandwidth, low latency access to S3. Since the company does not own a publically routable IPv4 address block, a request was made to AWS for an AWS-owned address for a Public Virtual Interface (VIF). The security team is calling this new connection a backdoor
, and you have been asked to clarify the risk to the company. Which concern from the security team is valid and should be addressed?
A. AWS advertises its aggregate routes to the Internet allowing anyone on the Internet to reach the router.
B. Direct Connect customers with a Public VIF in the same region could directly reach the router.
C. EC2 instances in the same region with access to the Internet could directly reach the router.
D. The S3 service could reach the router through a pre-configured VPC Endpoint.
답변 1
0
안녕하세요.
질문의 Direct Connect Public VIF를 사용시 생길 수 있는 백도어 보안 리스크를 묻고 있습니다.
아래 링크의 라우팅 정책을 참고하시면 AWS는 customer prefix를 다른 customer에게 다시 광고하지 않습니다.
https://docs.aws.amazon.com/ko_kr/directconnect/latest/UserGuide/routing-and-bgp.html
그러나 퍼블릭 VIF를 통해서 EC2의 퍼블릭 IP나 NAT GW 등의 퍼블릭 서비스로 라우팅 가능하기에 이 퍼블릭 라우팅이 백도어가 될 수 있습니다.
따라서 정답은 C입니다.
안녕하세요, 답변 주셔서 감사합니다.
온프레미스 - DX - Public VIF - EC2(퍼블릭 IP) 또는 NAT GW 등에 접근이 가능하게 될거라는 말씀이실까요?