MFA for pfSense GUI
-
" A password CANNOT be the main sentry. "
It isn't!!! The physical access to the management network is the MAIN security… Password is just one of the many factors involved in access to the web gui.
Physical control is always better than any sort of something you know or even have...
Lets add up the factors that might include. Enter the building. I can not enter my office without a fingerprint.. Something I AM... Just to get in the building.. Now to access the special network that can even access the firewall I have to HAVE my laptop.. This auths to network via 802.1x - so it has to be my laptop.. Something I have.. To login to MY laptop you have to have my tiks card.. So this is something else I have, but also something I know since you have to have the pin to access the certs on that card. Keep in mind that you can not just connect to any port in the building you have to be on the few limited admin ports. Only these ports once proper authed even have access to the management network.
You also need to know the password to my account to login to the laptop.
Now only then could you access the web gui of the firewall. Lets not forget you need to know its IP for management and port. Its not on any user network in the building that can access the web gui.
Then you need to know the gui password.
So how is that not MFA??? You want to add what Google authenticator to it? or some SMS text to your phone..
What I think is happening here is someone needs to check off some box that says MFA.. And doesn't really understand the whole concept of what that actually is.
Also that is built in.. Just install the package and set it up for whatever auth you want to use. its all just clickity clickity to set up.. If your checkoff sheet says oh you need to be able to do XYZ as your MFA then the sheet is pointless and doesn't understand the basic concept that makes up MFA...
If your web gui is accessible to even the normal internal network of your org then your doing it wrong in the first place..
-
Well that's definitely an option but not a native solution. Why people go through a comparatively harder way when a native solution can be developed and provided. The main reason, people try to bypass security b'cuz we make them so hard and complicated to implement. pfSence should really do the forward thinking rather holding on to some 80's security concepts, IMO.
What do you consider a native solution? Can you give an example?
-
Exactly… Like to hear this as well, since if you want to setup any sort of MFA on say cisco you need to point to a remote auth server and in this remote auth server you can setup different forms of MFA other than just a user name and password. Say some sort of fob like google auth, I personally use Authy myself where this sort of MFA make sense.
Ie services that have no access controls other than username/password - ie say your bank website, or your email site.. Ie the interface is open to the public..
Maybe the user would be happy with a walk through of how easy it is to say setup OTP to the gui? Even though I personally think its a waste of time - since the web gui to your firewall should always only be accessible via a controlled network.
Another way to accomplish MFA when remote to the firewall would be VPN as only way to access it. Where you now have multiple factors to access the vpn, even if remote.. Cert for example, even could setup OTP needed as well along with this, etc.
I have sneaky feeling only thing they might consider built in, is if you had a check box to click and it post up a QR code you could scan on your phone to setup your OTP.
-
I have sneaky feeling only thing they might consider built in, is if you had a check box to click and it post up a QR code you could scan on your phone to setup your OTP.
For Google Auth in the FreeRADIUS 3 package, it has exactly that. A QR code you can scan into the GA app.
Most other MFA setups require involving an external/central auth server or RADIUS specifically. It may be possible to bake in something like that without RADIUS but why reinvent the wheel when doing so offers no advantage?
It may happen eventually, but for the moment there isn't any compelling reason to spend manpower on reimplementing something that works fine as-is.
-
Yeah Jim but they have to do a bit of reading and click a few buttons ;)
And OMG they have to actually click the install for the freerad package.. So clearly its not built in… I think everyone should drop everything else they are working on and work on this. Because you know someone needs to check off a checklist that pfsense supports MFA without actually knowing what that actually means. But if there is a check box that gives them a QR code for their OTP then they can give it a checkmark ;)
Must be loosing 1000's of customers a day because of this...
Love to know what the OP thinks about the fact that google auth is just really another password.. But oh wait they call it a "shared secret key" ;) Be it a bit longer that is used for a math formula to generate a code based on time of day ;) So anyone with that "password" could generate the same code as well.. Not all that secure now is it when you think about it ;)
So when it comes down to it your talking about really just having 2 passwords vs 1.. So their MFA is just 2 things you know vs an actual other factor like something you have or are, or physical access, etc.
If I know the users password and whatever the super secret "shared secret key" is I have access.. Vs say having to have a physical access to a specific network that has multiple "passwords" you have to auth with. And something longer than than just a shared key..
Now I guess a cert could be seen as the same thing... But then your taking about a REALLY LONG password ;)
But hey have to check off that MFA check box now don't we... The 30 seconds you spend answering this thread you could of been working on setting up that check box ;)
-
Hi @ivor
Sorry for my silence. by 'native' I meant something like AWS Management Console, which you can enable/disable in the user settings area and once it enabled the only after MFA entry you get access to the console. Or something like ability to integrate some 3rd part application like DUO.I know you guys may not like the idea of having MFA but really like to see it's not just relying on a silly password only.
-San
-
This post is deleted! -
TOTP has become commonplace. sad this is still a reality in 2022...
RIP cybersecurity attestation forms as pfsense is natively uninsurable
-
You know you can do this via Freeradius using Google Auth or mOTP?
-
@stephenw10 I get that it's possible. It just feels unnecessary to have a dependency on the freerad package for this functionality.
-
@condescending_dev said in MFA for pfSense GUI:
@stephenw10 I get that it's possible. It just feels unnecessary to have a dependency on the freerad package for this functionality.
I don’t mean to stir up the discussion again, but it is a fact that cybersecurity insurance and company policies can become a pfSense showstopper because of MFA.
Yes, I know, install freeradius and do it that way, but you - like me - also know that there are several cases where that package stops running, doesn’t reinstall on upgrades and so on, and that just becomes a major problem if you are in uptime trouble as it is.
It would be nice if it was a backed in feature you could depend on in a standalone/isolated/no running packages situation as well.
-
@keyser said in MFA for pfSense GUI:
It would be nice if it was a backed in feature
I agree. I'll poke it further up the list if I can.
Steve
-
and just last week, we were stopped from using
pfSensebecause we failed to demonstrate a meaningful MFA to login to the webConfigurator.
We also failed to get Cyber Essential certificate (in UK) because of lack of MFA on the GUI.
We really need something sooner than later.
-San
-
If it were to be something considered in the future. Then please consider adding support for such things as FIDO/2. So that we could use hardware keys e.g. Yubikeys as well.
Please and thank you.
-
@macusers but why didnt you implement the suggestion asd outlined by @jimp
Use FreeRadius and Google Auth?I get where everyone is coming from - basically a standlone feature to do this but again....the feature technically exists now with the freeradius package. Im really not understanding the issue here. Use it or dont.
-
@michmoor said in MFA for pfSense GUI:
@macusers but why didnt you implement the suggestion asd outlined by @jimp
Use FreeRadius and Google Auth?I get where everyone is coming from - basically a standlone feature to do this but again....the feature technically exists now with the freeradius package. Im really not understanding the issue here. Use it or dont.
Because we have all tried doing upgrades :-)
Packages are supposed to install in the background, but that can occasionally fail - or cause issues, and then you are in big trouble if your physical console is a 1000 miles away.
Relying on a local installed 3rd party freeradius package for the second factor is a hen and the egg problem waiting to happen if you have any issues. -
@keyser if Radius fails isnt there a fallback to local auth then?
Firewall: NetGate,Palo Alto-VM,Juniper SRX
Routing: Juniper, Arista, Cisco
Switching: Juniper, Arista, Cisco
Wireless: Unifi, Aruba IAP
JNCIP,CCNP Enterprise -
@michmoor said in MFA for pfSense GUI:
@keyser if Radius fails isnt there a fallback to local auth then?
and you back with no MFA again.
The thing, which is very hard for me understand: why it's so hard to acknwledge the issue and work towards a proper solution, rather than spending time convincinging people for a not-so-convenient work around.-San
-
@macusers ??? Im really not following here.
This is a problem enterprises have. I have TACACS and RADIUS deployed on my network gear. If my ClearPass servers fail, the fallback authentication method is local auth.
How is this any different here? Radius fails, local auth should be used. Is the assumption that no authentication should be used to manage a device if your central management platform fails? thats insane.. -
@michmoor said in MFA for pfSense GUI:
@keyser if Radius fails isnt there a fallback to local auth then?
If implemented correctly then yes, you should be able to configure that option. But as far as I remember, pfSense does not have this option - so the built-in admin either always works without MFA, or you do not have a fallback in case radius is down (because admin is disabled). I may be wrong here, but a couple of years ago I could not get it to work in a proper MFA certifiable way.
