Using Postfix for Secure SMTP Gateways
E-mail is easily the most popular and important Internet service today, which has made it a popular target of cyber-criminals and spam-happy miscreants. Adding to the problem is the inescapable reality that configuring sendmail, the most commonly used Mail Transfer Agent (MTA), is complicated, nonintuitive and easy to get wrong.
Wietse Venema, intrepid developer of TCP wrappers and co-creator of SATAN, has come through for us again: his program, postfix, provides an alternative to sendmail that is simpler in design, more modular, easier to configure and less work to administer. Equally important, it's been designed with scalability, reliability and sound security as fundamental requirements.
This article is intended to bring you up to speed quickly on how to use postfix on your network as a secure means of receiving e-mail from and delivering it to Internet hosts. In particular we'll focus on deploying postfix on firewalls, in DMZs and in other settings in which it will be exposed to contact with untrusted systems.
Is sendmail really that bad? That depends on what you need it to do—the learning curve may not be justified if your e-mail architecture is simple. But sendmail is unquestionably an extremely powerful, stable and widely deployed application that isn't going away anytime soon, nor should it. In fact, The Paranoid Penguin will probably feature a sendmail article some time in the next few months.
Both sendmail and postfix are Mail Transfer Agents. MTAs move e-mail from one host or network to another. These are in contrast to Mail Delivery Agents, which move mail within a system (i.e., from an MTA to a local user's mailbox, or from a mailbox to a file or directory). In other words, MTAs are like the mail trucks (and airplanes, trains, etc.) that move mail between post offices; Mail Delivery Agents are like the letter-carriers who distribute the mail to their destination mail boxes.
In addition to MTAs and MDAs, there are also various kinds of e-mail readers, including POP, POP3, and IMAP clients for retrieving e-mail from remote systems. These are also known as Mail User Agents, or MUAs. (There is no real-life simile for these, unless your mail is handed to you each day by a minion whose sole duty is to check your mail box now and then!) But we're not concerned with these or with MDAs, except to mention how they relate to MTAs.
By the way, if you still use UUCP, it's supported in postfix (and continues to be in sendmail, too); most MTAs support a variety of delivery “agents”, almost always UUCP and SMTP at the very least. Still, for the remainder of this article we'll assume you're interested in using postfix for SMTP (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol) transfers.
One very common use of SMTP, especially in organizations which use other e-mail protocols internally, is on an Internet e-mail gateway. Since SMTP is the lingua franca for Internet e-mail, there must be at least one SMTP host on any network that needs to exchange e-mail over the Internet. In such a network, the SMTP gateway acts as a liason between non-SMTP mail servers on the inside and SMTP hosts on the outside.
This “liason” functionality in and of itself isn't as important as it once was; the current versions of Microsoft Exchange, Lotus Notes, and many other non-SMTP-based e-mail server products have no problem communicating with SMTP servers directly. But there are still reasons to have all inbound (and even outbound) e-mail arrive at a single point, the chief reason being security.
There are two main security benefits to using an SMTP gateway. First, it's much easier to secure a single SMTP gateway from external threats than it is to secure multiple internal e-mail servers. Second, separating Internet mail from internal mail allows one to move Internet mail transactions off the internal network entirely. The logical place for an SMTP gateway is in a DMZ (“Demilitarized Zone”) network, separated from both the Internet and the internal network by a firewall.
As with DNS, FTP, WWW and any other publicly accessible service, the more protection you can place between potential hackertargets and your internal network, the better. Adding an extra NIC to your firewall, keeping public services in a separate network, is one of the cheapest and most effective ways of doing this—as long as you configure the firewall to carefully restrict traffic to/from the DMZ). It's also good risk management; in the (hopefully) unlikely event that your web server, for example, is compromised, it won't become nearly as convenient a launch pad for attacks on the rest of your network.
(For additional information on the DMZ technique of firewalling, see the article </#147>Securing DNS and BIND</#148>, page 92 of this issue.)
Thus, even organizations with only one e-mail server should still consider adding an SMTP gateway, even if that e-mail server already has SMTP functionality.
But what if your firewall is your FTP server, e-mail server, etc.? Although the use of firewalls for any service hosting is scowled upon by the truly paranoid, this is common practice for very small networks (e.g., home users with broadband Internet connections). And, in this foul-weather paranoiac's opinion, BIND and postfix pose much less of an exposure for a firewall than other service applications.
For starters, DNS and SMTP potentially involve less direct contact between untrusted users and the server's file system. (I say “potentially” because it's certainly possible, with badly written or sloppily configured software, to create extremely insecure DNS and SMTP services.) In addition, both BIND and postfix have “chroot” options and run as unprivileged users, two features that help reduce the danger of either service being used to somehow gain root access (we'll discuss both of these options in depth shortly.)
Practical Task Scheduling Deployment
July 20, 2016 12:00 pm CDT
One of the best things about the UNIX environment (aside from being stable and efficient) is the vast array of software tools available to help you do your job. Traditionally, a UNIX tool does only one thing, but does that one thing very well. For example, grep is very easy to use and can search vast amounts of data quickly. The find tool can find a particular file or files based on all kinds of criteria. It's pretty easy to string these tools together to build even more powerful tools, such as a tool that finds all of the .log files in the /home directory and searches each one for a particular entry. This erector-set mentality allows UNIX system administrators to seem to always have the right tool for the job.
Cron traditionally has been considered another such a tool for job scheduling, but is it enough? This webinar considers that very question. The first part builds on a previous Geek Guide, Beyond Cron, and briefly describes how to know when it might be time to consider upgrading your job scheduling infrastructure. The second part presents an actual planning and implementation framework.
Join Linux Journal's Mike Diehl and Pat Cameron of Help Systems.
Free to Linux Journal readers.Register Now!
- Stunnel Security for Oracle
- Murat Yener and Onur Dundar's Expert Android Studio (Wrox)
- Managing Linux Using Puppet
- My +1 Sword of Productivity
- SUSE LLC's SUSE Manager
- Doing for User Space What We Did for Kernel Space
- Google's SwiftShader Released
- Parsing an RSS News Feed with a Bash Script
- SuperTuxKart 0.9.2 Released
- SourceClear Open
With all the industry talk about the benefits of Linux on Power and all the performance advantages offered by its open architecture, you may be considering a move in that direction. If you are thinking about analytics, big data and cloud computing, you would be right to evaluate Power. The idea of using commodity x86 hardware and replacing it every three years is an outdated cost model. It doesn’t consider the total cost of ownership, and it doesn’t consider the advantage of real processing power, high-availability and multithreading like a demon.
This ebook takes a look at some of the practical applications of the Linux on Power platform and ways you might bring all the performance power of this open architecture to bear for your organization. There are no smoke and mirrors here—just hard, cold, empirical evidence provided by independent sources. I also consider some innovative ways Linux on Power will be used in the future.Get the Guide