|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [FW1] Multicast address
I've had a quick read through - 1) doesn't apply as you don't use NAT, 2) shouldn't apply as your using addresses from the same subnet for your pairs of monitored firewall interfaces. 3) doesn't apply as you're using MCs. Then again, I'm not sure if 2) applies or not, as I don't know your addressing details. Make sure both addresses are on the same subnet, and the subnet mask has been properly setup. Tim ----- Original Message ----- From: Francisco Cabral <[email protected]> To: 'Tim Holman' <[email protected]>; Fw-1-Mailinglist (E-mail) <[email protected]> Sent: 18 April 2001 14:41 Subject: RE: [FW1] Multicast address > Here's the article: > > Log Error: rule 0: Local interface address spoofing > > Check Point FireWall-1, Gateway Configurations > for version: 4.1 SP2 And Later > > last update: 12/01/2000 10:16:46 > This error message started showing up on 4.1 SP2 and 4.0 SP5 hotfix > installations when used with VRRP. > > This is a new security feature of FireWall-1 4.1 SP2 and 4.0 SP5 hotfix that > was included as part of the fixes for the issues announced at BlackHat 2000. > FireWall-1 now drops any packet it receives with a source IP address that > belongs to one of it's interfaces, which includes VRRP IP address. This > happens regardless of whether or not you configure anti-spoofing on your > interfaces. There are three possible reasons you may be experiencing this: > > 1. Using a VRRP IP in a Destination Static NAT, which is actually the most > common. This means the IP address you are using in a Destination Static NAT > is actually an IP address backed up by VRRP. To resolve the issue, use > proxy-only ARPs using the VRRP MAC instead of backing up these IPs with > VRRP. Note that in some switched configuration, this may not work correctly > without disabling spanning tree or MAC address caching. In this case, use > the resolution documented below. > > 2. You have two interfaces configured on logically different networks (say > 192.168.1.0/24 and 192.168.2.0/24), but connected to the same hub or VLAN. > To resolve the problem, configure one of the physical interfaces with IP > addresses on both networks (say 192.168.1.1 and 192.168.2.1). If > anti-spoofing is used in FireWall-1, you will need to make configuration > changes accordingly. > > 3. Customers running VRRP v2 configurations (not Monitored Circuits) may > also experience problems. A customer reported these error messages in this > configuration. This specific problem should be resolved with IPSO 3.3 and > FireWall-1 4.1 SP2. > > SOLUTION > To disable this new feature entirely, use the modzap utility in Resolution > 1261 to disable this feature in the FireWall-1 Kernel Module and reboot: > > modzap _fw_local_interface_anti_spoofing $FWDIR/boot/modules/fwmod.o 0x0 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Tim Holman [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: 18 April 2001 15:27 > To: Francisco Cabral; Fw-1-Mailinglist (E-mail) > Subject: Re: [FW1] Multicast address > > > Same VLAN for both interfaces, otherwise multicasts won't get through. > I don't have access to the KB at the moment, so can't check the article. > You don't want to add other IPs to your interfaces - remember that > Checkpoint only supports ONE external interface. > Is there any way you can send me screendumps of your mc configuration of > both machines ? > > Tim > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Francisco Cabral <[email protected]> > To: 'Tim Holman' <[email protected]>; Fw-1-Mailinglist (E-mail) > <[email protected]> > Sent: 18 April 2001 13:24 > Subject: RE: [FW1] Multicast address > > > > I think I found the problem. Take a look at Nokia Resolution id 3463 on > > their knowledge base, specifically at point 2. > > > > But now the problem is : how can you add multiple IPs on different > networks > > to the same interface? Tried through Voyager but only to get an error that > > the network was already defined on another interface. > > > > How's your setup? Do u use different VLANS for each interface? > > > > Francisco > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Tim Holman [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: 18 April 2001 14:12 > > To: Francisco Cabral; Fw-1-Mailinglist (E-mail) > > Subject: Re: [FW1] Multicast address > > > > > > When you created the VRRP Multicast network object, did you use 224.0.0.18 > > and 255.255.255.255 ? > > Have you setup an IGMP and VRRP rule ? > > Set one up with the source as 'firewall-1 + firewall 2', the destination > as > > 'firewall-1 + firewall 2', service VRRP (manually define this service with > > Match.. ip_p=112) AND IGMP, Accept, Log (although you'll probably want to > > skip the logs after a while). > > Check in your mc configuration that you're monitoring eth2 from the > circuit > > for eth1, and eth1 for the circuit for eth2. > > Something's not quite right as you shouldn't get these errors. > > > > Tim > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Francisco Cabral <[email protected]> > > To: 'Tim Holman' <[email protected]>; Fw-1-Mailinglist (E-mail) > > <[email protected]> > > Sent: 18 April 2001 12:15 > > Subject: RE: [FW1] Multicast address > > > > > > > The HA is setup to monitor all the FW interfaces except the Heartbeat > link > > > using monitored circuits. > > > The funny thing is that I'm getting drops, when I look at the logs, from > : > > > > > > Origin Source Destination > > > Services > > > > > > Public IP FW Master Any of the FW interfaces 224.0.0.18 > > > 38401 > > > > > > but from the slave I'm getting accepts: > > > > > > Origin Source Destination > > > Services > > > > > > Public IP FW Slave Any of the FW interfaces 224.0.0.18 > > > 38401 > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Tim Holman [mailto:[email protected]] > > > Sent: 18 April 2001 11:26 > > > To: Francisco Cabral; Fw-1-Mailinglist (E-mail) > > > Subject: Re: [FW1] Multicast address > > > > > > > > > If there's no NAT in place, then public addresses should never make it > to > > > your LAN. > > > Have you allowed IGMP and VRRP (create the service manually) between the > > > firewalls ? > > > Have you setup monitored circuits with the Nokias ? > > > Could you post up a sample log message ? > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > Tim > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: Francisco Cabral <[email protected]> > > > To: 'Tim Holman' <[email protected]>; Fw-1-Mailinglist (E-mail) > > > <[email protected]> > > > Sent: 18 April 2001 08:42 > > > Subject: RE: [FW1] Multicast address > > > > > > > > > > That's all done initially. > > > > > > > > I understand the need to monitor the FW interfaces but I would like > that > > > to > > > > be log-silent. > > > > Apparently, you managed to do it. > > > > > > > > When I look at the logs, I can see effectily that, through the LAN > > > > interface, packets are coming out with the public IP of the FW. > > > > There's no NAT defined for the FW IPs. > > > > > > > > Can anyone point me to an article explaining how multicast works so > that > > I > > > > can assess if this is a Nokia or a IP "feature"? > > > > > > > > Francisco > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Tim Holman [mailto:[email protected]] > > > > Sent: 17 April 2001 19:21 > > > > To: Francisco Cabral; Fw-1-Mailinglist (E-mail) > > > > Subject: Re: [FW1] Multicast address > > > > > > > > > > > > What do your anti-spoofing rules say ? > > > > Setup the external interface to Others, the sync link to This Net, and > > the > > > > internal interface to Others+, adding a group with all the public IP > > > > addresses you're using for NAT. > > > > Do this for both firewalls, as this info is not replicated. > > > > If you're using 'Specific', then add the VRRP multicast object to the > > > group, > > > > but I've found the above formula works just as well. > > > > > > > > Tim > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: Francisco Cabral <[email protected]> > > > > To: Fw-1-Mailinglist (E-mail) > > > <[email protected]> > > > > Sent: 11 April 2001 11:02 > > > > Subject: [FW1] Multicast address > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > Each day, my FW logs get huge with the VRRP multicast address > entries > > > with > > > > > the reason of "address spoofing". Could the reason be that all the > FW > > > > > interfaces go into a hub (for testing)? Is there a way of not > logging > > > > these > > > > > packets? Thanks. > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > > > Francisco Cabral > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ============================================================================ > > > > ==== > > > > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, please see the > > instructions > > > at > > > > > http://www.checkpoint.com/services/mailing.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ============================================================================ > > > > ==== > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ================================================================================ To unsubscribe from this mailing list, please see the instructions at http://www.checkpoint.com/services/mailing.html ================================================================================
|
||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
