similar to: Problem with IPComp on VPN

Dear list, I''m running Shorewall on a dedicated Fedora 7 box. Shorewall is working well as an office DSL router (dynamic IP) with loc and dmz zones. I am now trying to configure IPSec to connect a VPS, "casp", with a static IP to both the firewall and to the loc network behind it. The host to host SA works fine. However, pings from "loc" to "casp" can be

I have been using shorewall and freeswan successfully for 3 or more years now. But they have all been using the Linux 2.4 kernel. My current configuration is (as the title suggests) using SuSE 9.1 which has a 2.6.5 kernel and freeswan 2.0.4 built-in. After much reading and a lot of trial and error, I did get this combination to work with Shorewall 2.0.9. It is happily talking to an older Mandrake

Hi, as some IPSec users might be worried about the "BSD derived RFC3173 IPComp encapsulation will expand arbitrarily nested payload" from http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2011/Apr/0 , here's some braindump: To be affected it's believed that you need to 1) manually compile in IPSEC (not done in GENERIC or the release), 2) have an entry for ipcomp in your security

Hi, I have been using IPsec to communicate between a laptop that tracks -stable and a Linksys BEFVP41 router. I only use it infrequently, but it's been working great. My setup is as described in http://grapeape.alerce.com/linksys-ipsec/article.html (which I am planning to submit to the handbook when it's done). I'm no longer able to make an ipsec connection, and I can't put my

I second Eero's comment, use a new IPSec daemon. Openswan was forked and became Libreswan. Paul, now a RH employee, was a main developer for the Openswan project before he and others created the Libreswan fork. https://libreswan.org/ EL6 has Openswan EL7 has Libreswan Racoon isn't all that fun to work with. If you have the option, ditch it and EL5 and move to a newer platform

Centos 5 is still soon end of life. Using it as ipsec gateway is .. Eero 21.3.2016 7.25 ip. "Mike - st257" <silvertip257 at gmail.com> kirjoitti: > On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 1:17 PM, Mike - st257 <silvertip257 at gmail.com> > wrote: > > > I second Eero's comment, use a new IPSec daemon. > > > > Openswan was forked and became Libreswan. Paul, now

Err. Sounds like security nightmare. 21.3.2016 7.47 ip. "Glenn Pierce" <glennpierce at gmail.com> kirjoitti: > Will ask my boss :) We are hosted on memset so not so easy to update > > Thanks > > On 21 March 2016 at 17:36, Eero Volotinen <eero.volotinen at iki.fi> wrote: > > Centos 5 is still soon end of life. Using it as ipsec gateway is .. > >

Hello everyone, I''m not sure whether to place my question here or in the racoon mailing list or even in that of iptables. I have created an ipsec connection with racoon in tunnel mode to another gateway to connect one subnet on each side to each other. This works fine. Only the ipsec gateway itself can''t send packages to the opposite subnet. Shorewall is configured according

Is there a "cookbook" for setting this up? There are examples for setting up a tunnel between two fixed-address networks (e.g. a remote LAN that needs to be "integrated" with a central LAN over IPSec but I can't find anything addressing the other situation -- remote user(s) where the connecting IPs are not known in advance, such as a person with a laptop or smartphone in a

Hi, I have setup a IPSEC VPN using Openswan to connect a Draytek router to a CentOS 5.2/Shorewall 4.2.9 firewall. The VPN establishes OK but I''m getting a problem with packets from the left hand subnet getting masqueraded rather than routed down the IPSEC VPN as though they were going out onto the net. I''ve spent the last day searching Google and so far I''ve hit a

Hi: We intend to build IPSec based VPN server on FreeBSD platform so that we can access internal network of a lab. The remote side will use VPN client and could be from anywhere of the Internet, or may be from the another site of the company. From the hnadbook, I saw the sample of site-to-site configurations and we do have one FreeBSD firewall (running ipfw) on both site and another one on

Hi, Does anyone have experience using IPSEC on CentOS in order to connect to vendor IPSEC-based VPN products (specifically Checkpoint FW1) ? Is the included IPSEC implementation sufficient, or do people have to rely on OpenSWAN or FreeSWAN ? I'd be testing tomorrow and I'm interested with experiences others have had and things to look out for. Thanks in advance, -- dag wieers, dag

Hi I hope someone can answer something I'm sure is quite basic. I am following the instructions at https://www.centos.org/docs/5/html/Deployment_Guide-en-US/ch-vpn.html On setting up a VPN The part I am having trouble with is when it show the /etc/racoon/racoon.conf file. But it doesn't say whay you have to do with this file. When I bring up my connection ifup bicester I get RTNETLINK

Scenario: FreeBSD box running IPFW acting as a gateway to private network. The private network is made up of entirely routeable IP addresses. External users running Win2k and XP on DSL connections with dynamic IPs. Goal: To have the FreeBSD gateway securely authenticate and encrypt the traffic between the outside users and the internal network. I've spent the last 3 days running up and

Hi, I''m researching for WAN optimizations with linux. My network is composed for MPLS network connecting 200 branches against a central site. I use Linux machines to provide security with IPSEC in the branches and in the central site. Now I''m lookup for techniques for optimization the link. My first ideas was use IPCOMP and proxy to cache traffic of HTTP applications. Somebody

I have problems connecting IPSEC VPN clients on the masqueraded network to outside VPN servers. It looks like this: ipsec-user | 192.168.1.10 (DHCP assigned) | | 192.168.1.1 fw-1 (shorewall, Linux 2.6) | 20.20.20.20 (internet) | 30.30.30.30 fw-2 (IPSEC VPN endpoint) | 192.168.100.1 | | 192.168.100.2 server ipsec-user (a road warrior) is supposed to create an IPSEC tunnel to his home

Hi, I''m asking my question here, because I could not find any answer to my problem, but I''m affraid shorewall is not the one to blame. First of all I''m using shorewall version 2.0.15 on two linux box. I set up an ipsec tunnel beetween those 2 boxes to be ables to connect 2 not routable subnetworks. Here is my network topology: 10.66.17.0/24 - 10.66.17.1 = eth0

Hello! I am using shorewall shorewall-2.0.11-1 on fedora core2 (iptables-1.2.9-95.7). My box has 2 physical nic´s plus one virt. ipsec interface for a freeswan-vpn connection. A few days ago, portsentry spit out a lot of connections from windows clients (port 135, 445). Ooops. I review my shorewall settings but could not find a mistake. So I took a win-client and established a second

I set up an ipsec/racoon vpn tunnel test environment. The gateway machines are 192.168.0.30 and 192.168.0.31 on the external adaptor and 10.0.1.1 and 10.0.2.1 internally. The test workstations are 10.0.1.10 and 10.0.2.10. The tunnel seems to be working as in 10.0.1.10 can talk to 10.0.2.10 an vice versa and they can both use the net via NAT, however 192.168.0.30 and 192.168.0.31 cannot directly

Hi, When a IPSec tunnel is established between two peers, I understand that the "normal" situation is to have in a given moment two SAs, one for each direction of the tunnel. However, in one of my tunnels (peer P1 running GNU/Linux with setkey and racoon; peer P2 is a Cisco router) there is a large number (around 19) of SAs established (this has been observed in P1 with