similar to: Re: 2.6 Kernel and Native IPSEC

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

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

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

To all, I''ve just recently finished my "Security Gateway Server" project which separates a 10 laptop WLAN subnet from our main LAN/Internet network. I used Debian Sarge with kernel 2.6.9/ipsec-netfilter patched, and Shorewall 2.2.0-RC3 on a Asus P4S533, 2.4 GHz PenIV and 512MB memory. The Toshiba A60-S166, PenIV, 2.4G laptops run Windows XP Pro and have internal Atheros based

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

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.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 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 on the new

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

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

I''ve rebuilt my old P-II/233 with Debian Sarge and it is now serving as my main firewall. It is running a home-built 2.6.9 kernel with the ipsec-netfilter and policy match patches. -Tom -- Tom Eastep \ Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool Shoreline, \ http://shorewall.net Washington USA \ teastep@shorewall.net PGP Public Key \

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

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

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

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

Dear tinc community, I am using tinc in switch mode. I have three nodes. Two nodes reside on routers, vpn-eth is bridged with internal lan, each router has several machines connected to it's internal lan. Third node is the roadwarrior - "endpoint" linux PC. When the roadwarrior is off - everything works perfectly, machines on both sides can communicate without a problem in any

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

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

I am have a shorewall firewall and freeswan ipsec running on a redhat 8.0 Linux gateway machine. I have one working tunnel defined, all works well. I am not clear how to define mutiple concurrent tunnels. I can not add further interface entries as all the tunnels come in on ipsec0, do I still have mutiple zone definitions? some of the tunnels will be dynamic roadwarriors and as such would need a

Hello, Having combed through the changefile from kernel.org it seems to me that policy matching is still not in the 2.6 kernel. Is that a sadly correct statement? Joh