similar to: 2.6 Kernel and Native IPSEC

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

>From your post on Oct. 4, 2004 >As I announced earlier, I''m on vacation this week and we are spending >the week at our second home. Before I left, I simulated an IPSEC tunnel >between this house and our home in the Seattle area and I''m pleased to >announce that the real tunnel works flawlessly. > >So I believe that I have done all of the testing that I can

While I have concentrated on support for 2.6 native IPSEC in release 2.2.0, I am still of the opinion that unless you absolutely need IPSEC compatibility that OpenVPN is a much easier (and in the case of roadwarriors, a much better) solution. Having already generated all of the required X.509 certificates, it took me less than 1/2 hr to replace my IPSEC testbed with an OpenVPN one using the new

Hi all, I''ve been using Shorewall 1.42 for a month on two firewalls at work and my own personal colocated server and love it. While pretty familiar with iptables, I don''t like dealing with it on a daily basis, and Shorewall certainly makes life easier. I''ve deployed Shorewall on both our Toronto and Ottawa office firewalls, and have configured a FreeS/WAN IPSEC

Hello, i have got a problem with the configuration of an roadwarrior ipsec VPN tunnel with shorewall 2.2.3. I read the Shorewall Kernel 2.6 IPSEC and folowed the instructions to that point where to modify the hosts with the folowing parameters: vpn eth0:0.0.0.0/0 ipsec But i have got an entry like net eth0:0.0.0.0/0 even in the same file: If i

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>

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

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.

Tom, After reading your latest postings, I am correct in understanding that, even with the netfilter-ipsec and policy patches in kernel 2.6, I still would not be able to connect more that one roadwarrior at a time? Mitch

hi, I can''t get a freeswan 2.02 ipsec x509 connection at work can somebody help me? ************************************************************************************* global situation ************************************************************************************* the linux gateway (chivas) is a single machine 192.168.1.250 with a local net 192.168.1.0/24, a dyn IP via a DSL

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

FYI... ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- Subject: RE: [Shorewall-users] 2.6 kernel ipsec and shorewall Date: Thursday 23 September 2004 07:44 From: "Jonathan Schneider" <jon@clearconcepts.ca> To: "''Tom Eastep''" <teastep@shorewall.net> I must have been up too late working on this, looking at it the next day I noticed I completely forgot

I just wanted to drop a success notice to the list. We always hear the failures, and rarely the successes! ;-) After switching from FC1 and freeS/WAN ipsec to the new native linux 2.6 ipsec (ie: setkey-based) my QoS code suddenly started working properly! Previously, with FC1 and freeS/WAN, I found it impossible and rather buggy (kernel panics!) to get QoS to make any difference at all. My

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 claas@rootdir.de wrote: > Hello, > > > > #--- file: policy --- > #vpn policies: > loc vpn ACCEPT info > fw vpn ACCEPT info > vpn loc ACCEPT info > vpn fw ACCEPT info > > net

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 claas@rootdir.de wrote: > Hello! > > > Machine A > WAN IP: 123.123.123.111 > LAN IP: 192.168.177.1 > > > Machine A wants to connect through an IPsec tunnel to 192.168.176.2 tcp 110 (pop3). > > kernel: Shorewall:all2all:REJECT: > IN= OUT=ppp0 SRC=123.123.123.111 DST=192.168.176.2 > LEN=60 TOS=0x10

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 claas@rootdir.de wrote: > I am using kernel 2.6.6 native ipsec with racoon and shorewall 2.1.9 > in production for one week now. I just want to tell you that it seems > to run stable here. > > I am going to extend my setup to a 3 gateway setup soon. > Afterwards I will try to also get roadwarriors in. > I will report on that

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I have been testing the new IPSEC 2.6 kernel support this morning using transport mode over a wireless link. I have discovered one bug which is corrected in the file at: ftp://shorewall.net/pub/shorewall/errata/2.1.3/firewall - -Tom - -- Tom Eastep \ Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool Shoreline, \ http://shorewall.net

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

I've just wrote a lenghty email on Fedora ML as reply to Phillip who seems to be in the same trouble as myself... Found that while searching all mailing list archives and bugzillas I could think off (not really successfully, many people with same problems, no answers other than "works for me" -- glad to hear it works for somebody else, but it would be nice if he/she was a bit

What do I have to do to pass ipsec traffic through shorewall? I am not using ipsec to create a tunnel, I am using it in transport mode to encrypt communications between specific hosts on my LAN. when the firewall is clear''d traffic works perfectly and i am able to communicate with the hosts i have setup ipsec on, however when i start shorewall i cannot communicate with those hosts