similar to: OT: Racoon with virtual ip (roadwarrior client)

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

Sorry Dag, it is possible to use linux as a roadwarrior client: http://www.fw-1.de/aerasec/ng/vpn-racoon/CP-VPN1-NG-Linux-racoon-roadwarrior.html -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [CentOS] Connecting CentOS to IPSEC VPN (Checkpoint FW1) Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 15:20:55 +0200 From: carlopmart <carlopmart at gmail.com> To: CentOS mailing list <centos at centos.org>

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 .. > >

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

Buf ... Solved. Problem was that /etc/pam.d/racoon doesn't exists (I found this tip on NetBSD ipsec pages). Simply I have copied /etc/pam.d/passwd to /etc/pam.d/racoon and now all works as expected. Many thanks for your help Ross. Ross S. W. Walker wrote: > > I think it might just use another one like /etc/pam.d/remote > cause I audited the package and it wasn't there.

So far, OpenVPN has been working very well for me. Unfortunately, the iPhone doesn't have (yet?) an OpenVPN client, so I'm forced to work with what's available. The options are: L2TP, PPTP and IPSec. If you were to install a VPN endpoint on CentOS, which protocol would you prefer? The condition is to avoid shabby VPN servers that make the system less secure. I've seen some

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

On Thu, February 19, 2015 12:33, Les Mikesell wrote: > On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 9:48 AM, James B. Byrne > <byrnejb at harte-lyne.ca> wrote: >> >>> I added these directives to the route-eth0:192 file: >>> >>> ADDRESS0=192.168.6.9 >>> NETMASK0=255.255.255.0 >>> GATEWAY0=192.168.6.1 >>> >> >> Which should have been:

Hi all, I am trying to establish a vpn tunnel between one CentOS5 IPSec server and a roadwarrior client, CentOS5 too. Roadwarrior use ipsec-tools version 0.6.5-8 (that comes with CentOS5) and server uses version 0.7 (downloaded from ipsec-tools website). My server configuration is: path include "/etc/racoon"; path certificate "/etc/racoon/certs"; path pre_shared_key

Hello, in /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-eth0 I have this <ifcfg-eth0> ... IPV6INIT=yes IPV6ADDR=prefix::5 IPV6ADDR_SECONDARIES="prefix::2 prefix::3 prefix::4" IPV6_AUTOCONF=no IPV6_DEFAULTGW=prefix::1 IPV6_DEFAULTDEV=eth0 </ifcfg-eth0> when I enter ifconfig the IPv6 addresses are in a different order <ifconfig> eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr ... inet addr:...

I know how to use 'ip' to set up a static route, e.g.: ip route add 192.168.128.0/17 via 40.53.24.3 dev eth0 But if you reboot or restart network, you loose this. Thus you have to make it persistant. I found: http://www.cyberciti.biz/tips/configuring-static-routes-in-debian-or-red-hat-linux-systems.html where it says to add to ifcfg-eth0: 192.168.128.0/17 via 40.53.24.3 But this

I''ve successfully tested an IPSEC Roadwarrior configuration where both the gateway and the roadwarrior are runniing 2.6 with Racoon. The Shorewall IPSEC-2.6 documentation (http://shorewall.net/IPSEC.htm) has been updated to reflect my experimentation. Note that you can get the new ''ipsecvpn'' script from CVS until I release RC1 in the next day or so. -Tom -- Tom

I want to add the following route command route add -net 192.168.2.0/27 gw 192.168.2.3 via the normal network setup. The result should be the following routing table (the first line): 192.168.2.0/27 via 192.168.2.3 dev xenbr1 scope link 192.168.2.0/27 dev eth2 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.2.4 192.168.2.0/27 dev xenbr1 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.2.3 192.168.1.0/24 dev xenbr0

Paul, On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 5:47 PM, Digimer <lists at alteeve.ca> wrote: > On 17/03/16 04:47 PM, paul.greene.va at verizon.net wrote: > > Thanks, I followed the 2nd article, and it got the existing virtual > > machines communicating with each other. > Right, so your VMs are on the same bridge group now (at Layer2 of OSI). > > > > However, any new

Hi, I'm wanting to configure a CentOS 6 server to have a fall-back default route via a second network interface. Given: - eth0 with 192.168.0.10 on subnet 192.168.0.0/24 gateway 192.168.0.1 - eth1 with 192.168.1.10 on subnet 192.168.1.0/24 gateway 192.168.1.1 Where eth0's network is a "back door" to the internet, and eth1's is the "front door", I believe I can

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

On Wed, February 18, 2015 13:07, Les Mikesell wrote: > On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 11:39 AM, James B. Byrne > <byrnejb at harte-lyne.ca> wrote: >> 2. How does one configure the routing table on network startup to >> specifically detail the route particular addresses are supposed to >> take? >> > > Not exactly sure how routing works with aliases on the same

I have centos 64 6.5 I installed bridge-utils I installed tunctl I added BRIDGE=br0 to ifcfg-eth0 I created ifcfg-br0 with correct settings I did service network restart and I get an error about br0 not present. When I plug in the second network (USB to ethernet) It detects as eth1 What do I need to change to get this to work. Thanks, jerry

Ok, we can take both but needs to be in a specific order. So, we have two ethernet interfaces, A and B. And both are defined in /etc/systemd/network/ to use dhcp. How to guarantee that the crap provided by dhcp to A (dns, gateway, ntp) is the default? To use an example, /etc/resolv.conf should end up like nameserver IP.for.A.DNS nameserver IP.for.B.DNS domain A.domain.com Now, this must be done