[isalist] Re: IPSec tunnel mode VPN
- From: Jim Harrison <Jim@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "isalist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <isalist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 18:05:40 -0700
http://www.ISAserver.org
-------------------------------------------------------
We're not listening; la-la-la-la-la....
-----Original Message-----
From: isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Thomas W Shinder
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 5:30 PM
To: isalist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [isalist] Re: IPSec tunnel mode VPN
Hi Joe,
Can you tell me exactly what feature you would like to see included with the
next version re: IPsec tunnel editing. I need a really clear explanation of the
problem so that I can communicate it as precisely as possible with the ISA dev
guys.
Thanks!
Tom
Thomas W Shinder, M.D.
Site: www.isaserver.org <http://www.isaserver.org/>
Blog: http://blogs.isaserver.org/shinder/
Book: http://tinyurl.com/3xqb7 <http://tinyurl.com/3xqb7>
MVP -- Microsoft Firewalls (ISA)
________________________________
From: isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Joe Pochedley
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 3:55 PM
To: isalist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [isalist] Re: IPSec tunnel mode VPN
Thor,
Confusion is a standard state for you, is it not? (Sorry, I've lurked
on this list for a loooooong time.. I just don't get much of a chance to
contribute because the rest of you are just so darn smart... So I had to take
my one opportunity to jab at you. Don't hold it against me!) All joking
aside.....
Yes, Tom said it could be done, and I agree that it could. However, I
did explain why in my situation it would be difficult and impractical to define
the network/clients in such a fashion (summary: non-contiguous block of IP
addresses).... In that regard, I'm the one being stubborn with a PITA
configuration I suppose.
I have defined a IPSEC tunnel on the ISA server and am not using L2TP.
I basically followed the instructions here:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/isa/2004/plan/ipsecvpn.mspx
Why is this an ISA problem? Well, if the PIX can do it, then ISA (the
superior product) should be able to as well. Yeah, well, the PIX can allow
you to screw up your security, so the ISA should too, eh? J
Again, joking aside... I guess it's not an ISA problem, as we've
already agreed it can be done. As for the Advanced Tunnel Editing comment...
I was just hoping for an easier way to work around the issue, possibly by
defining the "Local Network 'Internal' Subnets" (as ISA calls them) manually -
outside the ISA 'Networks' configuration.
Joe P
From: isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Thor (Hammer of God)
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 2:43 PM
To: isalist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [isalist] Re: IPSec tunnel mode VPN
A bit late, but I'm kind of confused... What exactly are you asking
for when you want "advanced tunnel editing?" And I'm not sure why you
"lament" ISA not being able to granular define a network - like Tom said, you
can have a network of a single IP - that's as "granular" as it gets. In your
OP you said you "of course, need to define the 'network' as our internal
network." Why "of course?" Why does it have to be defined as your internal
network? Just so you can "monitor" these units? Further, you say "the PIX can
establish the connection to your network" but you think the "PIX end is not
accepting the network as defined." If so, how is this and ISA issue?
Lastly, what exactly do you mean by "IPSec tunnel mode VPN?" You've
defined an IPSec policy on the ISA box itself and are connecting to the remote
PIX in tunnel mode? Or you've got an L2TP VPN configured via RRAS (which I've
seen some people confuse with an IPSec tunnel). The link you provided was for
a point-to-point VPN between the ISA and a remote host, not an "IPSec tunnel
mode VPN."
t
From: isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Joe Pochedley
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 2:05 PM
To: isalist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [isalist] Re: IPSec tunnel mode VPN
That's the rub... The addresses can't co-exist in two networks. I
understand the reasoning for this, hence my comment earlier in the thread about
doing something stupid (by defining two networks with overlapping IP's, you can
create a BIG hole in network security if you're not careful)...
Anyhow, the 'network' on the PIX side is defined as multiple individual
hosts. The hosts are in a non-contiguous block of IP addresses (example:
10.1.1.2, 10.1.1.3, 10.1.1.20, 10.1.1.21, 10.1.2.28, with hosts in between
which _aren't_ in the PIX list....). As such, I would have to re-define my
'Internal' network on the ISA side as about 50 different 'networks' so I could
then come up with a matching set of individual hosts for the PIX.
So in short, can it be done? Yep, I suppose so. Is it elegant? Not
by a long shot... I was honestly just hoping there was some way to more
manually define the tunnel parameters, but I suppose there's not.
So anyway, I should just drop the matter. It's a non-standard
situation which it appears only a handful of people have need of.... (As I
pointed out earlier, I'm not alone:
http://forums.isaserver.org/m_2002054535/mpage_1/key_ipsec/tm.htm#2002055269 )
Dr. Tom, thanks again for your time! Maybe if you can see some value,
you can put in advanced tunnel editing as a feature request for ISA 2008 (or
whatever the next version turns out to be)?
Joe P
From: isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Thomas W Shinder
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 2:25 PM
To: isalist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [isalist] Re: IPSec tunnel mode VPN
You can define a network with a single IP address if you like. Just
make sure that IP address isn't included in any other ISA Firewall Network.
Thomas W Shinder, M.D.
Site: www.isaserver.org <http://www.isaserver.org/>
Blog: http://blogs.isaserver.org/shinder/
Book: http://tinyurl.com/3xqb7
MVP -- Microsoft Firewalls (ISA)
________________________________
From: isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Joe Pochedley
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 1:08 PM
To: isalist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [isalist] Re: IPSec tunnel mode VPN
Amy,
The difference lies in the two different 'network' definitions
between the setup of the ISA and PIX. As such, as things are configured now,
the PIX can start the tunnel, but the ISA cannot due to these differences. In
short, I'm lamenting the fact that the ISA cannot define the network as
granularly as the PIX which leads to interoperability issues.
Joe P
From: isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Amy Babinchak
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2007 5:30 PM
To: isalist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [isalist] Re: IPSec tunnel mode VPN
I have an IPSec tunnel connected to a PIX. Didn't have any
problem with that. Where's the issue?
Amy
From: isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Joe Pochedley
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2007 5:21 PM
To: isalist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [isalist] Re: IPSec tunnel mode VPN
Tom,
I understand what you're saying... Being able to granularly
define the 'network' provides no extra level of security... Properly
implemented firewall rules provide much better control over who and what can
pass through the connection... Access <> security, though access is a part of
security, and all pieces of security should be controlled through the firewall
rules.... I can agree with that. And for that, and other reasons, you'd have
to pry my ISA out of my cold, dead hands before I'd replace it with anything
like a PIX.
However, point on security being well taken, what I really want
to discuss is a point of flexibility... I still can't get around the limitation
or inability of ISA to interoperate with a device that can define granular
IPSEC 'network' definitions. The remote side won't take the ISA's broadly
defined IPSEC network definition, and as such the ISA can't establish a tunnel.
It seems almost as if this was an artificial limitation, or a simplification
to keep folks from making dumb mistakes...?
Thanks for your time.
Joe P
From: isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Thomas W Shinder
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2007 4:00 PM
To: isalist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [isalist] Re: IPSec tunnel mode VPN
I don't' agree. Security is set at firewall policy, not at the
definition of ISA Firewall Networks. There's no reasonable expectation to think
that ISA Firewall Networks should enforce firewall policy.
From: isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Joe Pochedley
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2007 12:37 PM
To: isalist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [isalist] Re: IPSec tunnel mode VPN
I understand what you're saying, Tom. Really, I do. And as I
noted below I will be setting up firewall rules / policy on the connection.
However, I always thought the best security was through layers
of security. As such, I'd view the ability to more tightly define the
'networks' as just another layer of security.
Agree to disagree I suppose?
That argument aside, it's still troubling that this limitation
prevents me from establishing the connection from this side.
Joe P
From: isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Thomas W Shinder
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 6:30 PM
To: isalist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [isalist] Re: IPSec tunnel mode VPN
No, "tightness" is done by creating firewall policy, not by
defining networks.
Thomas W Shinder, M.D.
Site: www.isaserver.org <http://www.isaserver.org/>
Blog: http://blogs.isaserver.org/shinder/
Book: http://tinyurl.com/3xqb7
MVP -- Microsoft Firewalls (ISA)
________________________________
From: isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:isalist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Joe Pochedley
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 3:23 PM
To: isalist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [isalist] IPSec tunnel mode VPN
I'm trying to set up an IPSEC tunnel with a company
we're partnering with to do some 24hr monitoring of our servers... (Short
version: management wants an eye on some servers that now need to be running
24/7, we don't have a 24/7 IT staff, at least not on site... J ) This is my
first pass at setting up IPSEC tunnels in anything but an ISA to ISA config,
and even that was more for playing and not for production.....so I freely admit
that I'm by no means an IPSEC expert!
Anyhow, trying to set up a IPSEC tunnel from our ISA
2004 Server to their Cisco (Syphco) PIX. They've got the IPSEC IKE
configuration on the PIX defining the 'networks' as the individual hosts that
need to be monitored. As they're monitoring others clients off the same
hardware/configs, they can't define the network tunnels with the same overly
broad stroke as our ISA's 'Internal' network is defined (10.1.0.0/16... Way
bigger than we need, but anyhow.....)
On the ISA side, we've of course need to define the
'network' as our internal network. The IPSEC definition includes the
'internal' network as the source network. I can't define individual hosts like
the Cisco guys can. From a security standpoint, wouldn't it make sense to
allow that 'network' definition to be as tight as possible, even down to the
individual client level? I guess maybe there's one or two things the Cisco
guys do better, but I digress..
Now, the PIX can establish the connection to our
network and then traffic can flow back and forth from the defined hosts.
Everything is happy, we can get the monitoring done, etc etc... I can apply a
firewall rule to the client set being monitored, and only allow the proper
protocols to flow to and from that set, so things should be reasonably secure.
However, I can't establish the tunnel from the local
side (our internal / ISA side) of the network. The error that I believe is
causing the problem is the "notify: NO-PROPOSAL-CHOSEN" which I believe tells
me that the PIX end isn't accepting the network as I have it defined? (I'll
attach a snippet of the Oakley.log file at the end of the message.)
While being unable to start the tunnel from this side
isn't a show stopper for our current situation, I could see it being an issue
elsewhere... It seems to me that the IPSEC implementation on the ISA isn't
quite as robust as it could be. I'm sure it serves the need for 98% of folks,
and that's all we can ask for, right?
So finally to the questions: Do I just grin and bear
this limitation? Or..Is there some way to work around it? OR... Am I just WAY
off base and missing the obvious?
Sorry for the long message.
Joe Pochedley
PS: Who uses PS in an email? Well I already had the
email written, and figured why waste a good email, when I found this:
http://forums.isaserver.org/m_2002054535/mpage_1/key_ipsec/tm.htm#2002055269
Seems like I'm not the only one who's had this problem,
so maybe I'm not totally crazy.
Snippet of Oakley.log file from the Windows / ISA
box....
10-25: 14:47:42:686:7f8 Acquire from driver:
op=0000080E src=10.1.2.28.0 dst=172.16.150.100.0 proto = 0,
SrcMask=255.255.0.0, DstMask=255.255.255.0, Tunnel 1, TunnelEndpt=206.x.x.x
Inbound TunnelEndpt=64.x.x.x
10-25: 14:47:42:701:c344 Starting Negotiation: src =
64.x.x.x.0500, dst = 206.x.x.x.0500, proto = 00, context = 0000080E, ProxySrc =
10.1.0.0.0000, ProxyDst = 172.16.150.0.0000 SrcMask = 255.255.0.0 DstMask =
255.255.255.0
10-25: 14:47:42:701:c344 QM PolicyName: ISA Server
NetServe365 QM Policy dwFlags 0
10-25: 14:47:42:701:c344 QMOffer[0] LifetimeKBytes 0
LifetimeSec 0
10-25: 14:47:42:701:c344 QMOffer[0] dwFlags 0
dwPFSGroup 0
10-25: 14:47:42:701:c344 Algo[0] Operation: ESP Algo:
Triple DES CBC HMAC: MD5
10-25: 14:47:42:701:c344 GetSpi: src =
172.16.150.0.0000, dst = 10.1.0.0.0000, proto = 00, context = 0000080E, srcMask
= 255.255.255.0, destMask = 255.255.0.0, TunnelFilter 1
10-25: 14:47:42:701:c344 Setting SPI 1690425572
10-25: 14:47:42:701:c344 constructing ISAKMP Header
10-25: 14:47:42:701:c344 constructing HASH (null)
10-25: 14:47:42:701:c344 constructing SA (IPSEC)
10-25: 14:47:42:701:c344 constructing NONCE (IPSEC)
10-25: 14:47:42:701:c344 constructing ID (proxy)
10-25: 14:47:42:701:c344 constructing ID (proxy)
10-25: 14:47:42:701:c344 constructing HASH (QM)
10-25: 14:47:42:701:c344
10-25: 14:47:42:701:c344 Sending: SA = 0x0011D980 to
206.x.x.x:Type 2.500
10-25: 14:47:42:701:c344 ISAKMP Header: (V1.0), len =
148
10-25: 14:47:42:701:c344 I-COOKIE fad3b3c540877a2f
10-25: 14:47:42:701:c344 R-COOKIE d1a85d37e8f69605
10-25: 14:47:42:701:c344 exchange: Oakley Quick Mode
10-25: 14:47:42:701:c344 flags: 1 ( encrypted )
10-25: 14:47:42:701:c344 next payload: HASH
10-25: 14:47:42:701:c344 message ID: 17da6134
10-25: 14:47:42:701:c344 Ports S:f401 D:f401
10-25: 14:47:43:858:90 retransmit: sa = 0011D980 centry
000EBFF0 , count = 1
10-25: 14:47:43:858:90
10-25: 14:47:43:858:90 Sending: SA = 0x0011D980 to
206.x.x.x:Type 2.500
10-25: 14:47:43:858:90 ISAKMP Header: (V1.0), len = 148
10-25: 14:47:43:858:90 I-COOKIE fad3b3c540877a2f
10-25: 14:47:43:858:90 R-COOKIE d1a85d37e8f69605
10-25: 14:47:43:858:90 exchange: Oakley Quick Mode
10-25: 14:47:43:858:90 flags: 1 ( encrypted )
10-25: 14:47:43:858:90 next payload: HASH
10-25: 14:47:43:858:90 message ID: 17da6134
10-25: 14:47:43:858:90 Ports S:f401 D:f401
10-25: 14:47:43:967:c344
10-25: 14:47:43:967:c344 Receive: (get) SA = 0x0011d980
from 206.210.85.4.500
10-25: 14:47:43:967:c344 ISAKMP Header: (V1.0), len =
108
10-25: 14:47:43:967:c344 I-COOKIE fad3b3c540877a2f
10-25: 14:47:43:967:c344 R-COOKIE d1a85d37e8f69605
10-25: 14:47:43:967:c344 exchange: ISAKMP
Informational Exchange
10-25: 14:47:43:967:c344 flags: 1 ( encrypted )
10-25: 14:47:43:967:c344 next payload: HASH
10-25: 14:47:43:967:c344 message ID: 6b4f0a42
10-25: 14:47:43:967:c344 processing HASH (Notify/Delete)
10-25: 14:47:43:967:c344 processing payload NOTIFY
10-25: 14:47:43:967:c344 notify: NO-PROPOSAL-CHOSEN
10-25: 14:47:45:858:90 retransmit: sa = 0011D980 centry
000EBFF0 , count = 2
10-25: 14:47:45:858:90
10-25: 14:47:45:858:90 Sending: SA = 0x0011D980 to
206.x.x.x:Type 2.500
Joe Pochedley
Network & Telecommunications Manager
The North American Mfg. Co.
email: JoePochedley@xxxxxxxxx
v: 216-206-5505
f: 216-641-7852
ExchangeDefender Message Security: Check Authenticity
<http://www.exchangedefender.com/verify.asp?id=l9QLVEp9003270&from=amy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
------------------------------------------------------
List Archives: //www.freelists.org/archives/isalist/
ISA Server Newsletter: http://www.isaserver.org/pages/newsletter.asp
ISA Server Articles and Tutorials: http://www.isaserver.org/articles_tutorials/
ISA Server Blogs: http://blogs.isaserver.org/
------------------------------------------------------
Visit TechGenix.com for more information about our other sites:
http://www.techgenix.com
------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe visit http://www.isaserver.org/pages/isalist.asp
Report abuse to listadmin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Other related posts:
