<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Introduction to FreeS/WAN</TITLE>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; CHARSET=iso-8859-1">
<STYLE TYPE="text/css"><!--
BODY { font-family: serif }
H1 { font-family: sans-serif }
H2 { font-family: sans-serif }
H3 { font-family: sans-serif }
H4 { font-family: sans-serif }
H5 { font-family: sans-serif }
H6 { font-family: sans-serif }
SUB { font-size: smaller }
SUP { font-size: smaller }
PRE { font-family: monospace }
--></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<A HREF="toc.html">Contents</A>
<A HREF="manpages.html">Previous</A>
<A HREF="trouble.html">Next</A>
<HR>
<H1><A name="firewall">FreeS/WAN and firewalls</A></H1>
<P>FreeS/WAN, or other IPsec implementations, frequently run on gateway
machines, the same machines running firewall or packet filtering code.
This document discusses the relation between the two.</P>
<P>The firewall code in 2.4 and later kernels is called Netfilter. The
user-space utility to manage a firewall is iptables(8). See the<A href="http://netfilter.samba.org">
netfilter/iptables web site</A> for details.</P>
<H2><A name="filters">Filtering rules for IPsec packets</A></H2>
<P>The basic constraint is that<STRONG> an IPsec gateway must have
packet filters that allow IPsec packets</STRONG>, at least when talking
to other IPsec gateways:</P>
<UL>
<LI>UDP port 500 for<A href="glossary.html#IKE"> IKE</A> negotiations</LI>
<LI>protocol 50 if you use<A href="glossary.html#ESP"> ESP</A>
encryption and/or authentication (the typical case)</LI>
<LI>protocol 51 if you use<A href="glossary.html#AH"> AH</A>
packet-level authentication</LI>
</UL>
<P>Your gateway and the other IPsec gateways it communicates with must
be able to exchange these packets for IPsec to work. Firewall rules
must allow UDP 500 and at least one of<A href="glossary.html#AH"> AH</A>
or<A href="glossary.html#ESP"> ESP</A> on the interface that
communicates with the other gateway.</P>
<P>For nearly all FreeS/WAN applications, you must allow UDP port 500
and the ESP protocol.</P>
<P>There are two ways to set this up:</P>
<DL>
<DT>easier but less flexible</DT>
<DD>Just set up your firewall scripts at boot time to allow IPsec
packets to and from your gateway. Let FreeS/WAN reject any bogus
packets.</DD>
<DT>more work, giving you more precise control</DT>
<DD>Have the<A href="manpage.d/ipsec_pluto.8.html"> ipsec_pluto(8)</A>
daemon call scripts to adjust firewall rules dynamically as required.
This is done by naming the scripts in the<A href="manpage.d/ipsec.conf.5.html">
ipsec.conf(5)</A> variables<VAR> prepluto=</VAR>,<VAR> postpluto=</VAR>
,<VAR> leftupdown=</VAR> and<VAR> rightupdown=</VAR>.</DD>
</DL>
<P>Both methods are described in more detail below.</P>
<H2><A name="examplefw">Firewall configuration at boot</A></H2>
<P>It is possible to set up both firewalling and IPsec with appropriate
scripts at boot and then not use<VAR> leftupdown=</VAR> and<VAR>
rightupdown=</VAR>, or use them only for simple up and down operations.</P>
<P>Basically, the technique is</P>
<UL>
<LI>allow IPsec packets (typically, IKE on UDP port 500 plus ESP,
protocol 50)
<UL>
<LI>incoming, if the destination address is your gateway (and
optionally, only from known senders)</LI>
<LI>outgoing, with the from address of your gateway (and optionally,
only to known receivers)</LI>
</UL>
</LI>
<LI>let<A href="glossary.html#Pluto"> Pluto</A> deal with IKE</LI>
<LI>let<A href="glossary.html#KLIPS"> KLIPS</A> deal with ESP</LI>
</UL>
<P>Since Pluto authenticates its partners during the negotiation, and
KLIPS drops packets for which no tunnel has been negotiated, this may
be all you need.</P>
<H3><A name="simple.rules">A simple set of rules</A></H3>
<P>In simple cases, you need only a few rules, as in this example:</P>
<PRE># allow IPsec
#
# IKE negotiations
iptables -I INPUT -p udp --sport 500 --dport 500 -j ACCEPT
iptables -I OUTPUT -p udp --sport 500 --dport 500 -j ACCEPT
# ESP encryption and authentication
iptables -I INPUT -p 50 -j ACCEPT
iptables -I OUTPUT -p 50 -j ACCEPT
</PRE>
<P>This should be all you need to allow IPsec through<VAR> lokkit</VAR>,
which ships with Red Hat 9, on its medium security setting. Once you've
tweaked to your satisfaction, save your active rule set with:</P>
<PRE>service iptables save</PRE>
<H3><A name="complex.rules">Other rules</A></H3>
You can add additional rules, or modify existing ones, to work with
IPsec and with your network and policies. We give a some examples in
this section.
<P>However, while it is certainly possible to create an elaborate set of
rules yourself (please let us know via the<A href="mail.html"> mailing
list</A> if you do), it may be both easier and more secure to use a set
which has already been published and tested.</P>
<P>The published rule sets we know of are described in the<A href="#rules.pub">
next section</A>.</P>
<H4>Adding additional rules</H4>
If necessary, you can add additional rules to:
<DL>
<DT>reject IPsec packets that are not to or from known gateways</DT>
<DD>This possibility is discussed in more detail<A href="#unknowngate">
later</A></DD>
<DT>allow systems behind your gateway to build IPsec tunnels that pass
through the gateway</DT>
<DD>This possibility is discussed in more detail<A href="#through">
later</A></DD>
<DT>filter incoming packets emerging from KLIPS.</DT>
<DD>Firewall rules can recognise packets emerging from IPsec. They are
marked as arriving on an interface such as<VAR> ipsec0</VAR>, rather
than<VAR> eth0</VAR>,<VAR> ppp0</VAR> or whatever.</DD>
</DL>
<P>It is therefore reasonably straightforward to filter these packets in
whatever way suits your situation.</P>
<H4>Modifying existing rules</H4>
<P>In some cases rules that work fine before you add IPsec may require
modification to work with IPsec.</P>
<P>This is especially likely for rules that deal with interfaces on the
Internet side of your system. IPsec adds a new interface; often the
rules must change to take account of that.</P>
<P>For example, consider the rules given in<A href="http://www.netfilter.org/documentation/HOWTO//packet-filtering-HOWTO-5.html">
this section</A> of the Netfilter documentation:</P>
<PRE>Most people just have a single PPP connection to the Internet, and don't
want anyone coming back into their network, or the firewall:
## Insert connection-tracking modules (not needed if built into kernel).
# insmod ip_conntrack
# insmod ip_conntrack_ftp
## Create chain which blocks new connections, except if coming from inside.
# iptables -N block
# iptables -A block -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT
# iptables -A block -m state --state NEW -i ! ppp0 -j ACCEPT
# iptables -A block -j DROP
## Jump to that chain from INPUT and FORWARD chains.
# iptables -A INPUT -j block
# iptables -A FORWARD -j block</PRE>
<P>On an IPsec gateway, those rules may need to be modified. The above
allows new connections from<EM> anywhere except ppp0</EM>. That means
new connections from ipsec0 are allowed.</P>
<P>Do you want to allow anyone who can establish an IPsec connection to
your gateway to initiate TCP connections to any service on your
network? Almost certainly not if you are using opportunistic
encryption. Quite possibly not even if you have only explicitly
configured connections.</P>
<P>To disallow incoming connections from ipsec0, change the middle
section above to:</P>
<PRE> ## Create chain which blocks new connections, except if coming from inside.
# iptables -N block
# iptables -A block -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT
# iptables -A block -m state --state NEW -i ppp+ -j DROP
# iptables -A block -m state --state NEW -i ipsec+ -j DROP
# iptables -A block -m state --state NEW -i -j ACCEPT
# iptables -A block -j DROP</PRE>
<P>The original rules accepted NEW connections from anywhere except
ppp0. This version drops NEW connections from any PPP interface (ppp+)
and from any ipsec interface (ipsec+), then accepts the survivors.</P>
<P>Of course, these are only examples. You will need to adapt them to
your own situation.</P>
<H3><A name="rules.pub">Published rule sets</A></H3>
<P>Several sets of firewall rules that work with FreeS/WAN are
available.</P>
<H4><A name="Ranch.trinity">Scripts based on Ranch's work</A></H4>
<P>One user, Rob Hutton, posted his boot time scripts to the mailing
list, and we included them in previous versions of this documentation.
They are still available from our<A href="http://www.freeswan.org/freeswan_trees/freeswan-1.5/doc/firewall.html#examplefw">
web site</A>. However, they were for an earlier FreeS/WAN version so we
no longer recommend them. Also, they had some bugs. See this<A href="http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/linux-ipsec/html/2000/04/msg00316.html">
message</A>.</P>
<P>Those scripts were based on David Ranch's scripts for his "Trinity
OS" for setting up a secure Linux. Check his<A href="http://www.ecst.csuchico.edu/~dranch/LINUX/index-linux.html">
home page</A> for the latest version and for information on his<A href="biblio.html#ranch">
book</A> on securing Linux. If you are going to base your firewalling
on Ranch's scripts, we recommend using his latest version, and sending
him any IPsec modifications you make for incorporation into later
versions.</P>
<H4><A name="seawall">The Seattle firewall</A></H4>
<P>We have had several mailing lists reports of good results using
FreeS/WAN with Seawall (the Seattle Firewall). See that project's<A href="http://seawall.sourceforge.net/">
home page</A> on Sourceforge.</P>
<H4><A name="rcf">The RCF scripts</A></H4>
<P>Another set of firewall scripts with IPsec support are the RCF or
rc.firewall scripts. See their<A href="http://jsmoriss.mvlan.net/linux/rcf.html">
home page</A>.</P>
<H4><A name="asgard">Asgard scripts</A></H4>
<P><A href="http://heimdall.asgardsrealm.net/linux/firewall/">Asgard's
Realm</A> has set of firewall scripts with FreeS/WAN support, for 2.4
kernels and iptables.</P>
<H4><A name="user.scripts">User scripts from the mailing list</A></H4>
<P>One user gave considerable detail on his scripts, including
supporting<A href="glossary.html#IPX"> IPX</A> through the tunnel. His
message was too long to conveniently be quoted here, so I've put it in
a<A href="user_examples.html"> separate file</A>.</P>
<H2><A name="updown">Calling firewall scripts, named in ipsec.conf(5)</A>
</H2>
<P>The<A href="manpage.d/ipsec.conf.5.html"> ipsec.conf(5)</A>
configuration file has three pairs of parameters used to specify an
interface between FreeS/WAN and firewalling code.</P>
<P>Note that using these is not required if you have a static firewall
setup. In that case, you just set your firewall up at boot time (in a
way that permits the IPsec connections you want) and do not change it
thereafter. Omit all the FreeS/WAN firewall parameters and FreeS/WAN
will not attempt to adjust firewall rules at all. See<A href="#examplefw">
above</A> for some information on appropriate scripts.</P>
<P>However, if you want your firewall rules to change when IPsec
connections change, then you need to use these parameters.</P>
<H3><A name="pre_post">Scripts called at IPsec start and stop</A></H3>
<P>One pair of parmeters are set in the<VAR> config setup</VAR> section
of the<A href="manpage.d/ipsec.conf.5.html"> ipsec.conf(5)</A> file and
affect all connections:</P>
<DL>
<DT>prepluto=</DT>
<DD>script to be called before<A href="manpage.d/ipsec_pluto.8.html">
pluto(8)</A> IKE daemon is started.</DD>
<DT>postpluto=</DT>
<DD>script to be called after<A href="manpage.d/ipsec_pluto.8.html">
pluto(8)</A> IKE daemon is stopped.</DD>
</DL>
These parameters allow you to change firewall parameters whenever IPsec
is started or stopped.
<P>They can also be used in other ways. For example, you might have<VAR>
prepluto</VAR> add a module to your kernel for the secure network
interface or make a dialup connection, and then have<VAR> postpluto</VAR>
remove the module or take the connection down.</P>
<H3><A name="up_down">Scripts called at connection up and down</A></H3>
<P>The other parameters are set in connection descriptions. They can be
set in individual connection descriptions, and could even call
different scripts for each connection for maximum flexibility. In most
applications, however, it makes sense to use only one script and to
call it from<VAR> conn %default</VAR> section so that it applies to all
connections.</P>
<P>You can:</P>
<DL>
<DT><STRONG>either</STRONG></DT>
<DD>set<VAR> leftfirewall=yes</VAR> or<VAR> rightfirewall=yes</VAR> to
use our supplied default script</DD>
<DT><STRONG>or</STRONG></DT>
<DD>assign a name in a<VAR> leftupdown=</VAR> or<VAR> rightupdown=</VAR>
line to use your own script</DD>
</DL>
<P>Note that<STRONG> only one of these should be used</STRONG>. You
cannot sensibly use both. Since<STRONG> our default script is obsolete</STRONG>
(designed for firewalls using<VAR> ipfwadm(8)</VAR> on 2.0 kernels),
most users who need this service will<STRONG> need to write a custom
script</STRONG>.</P>
<H4><A name="fw.default">The default script</A></H4>
<P>We supply a default script named<VAR> _updown</VAR>.</P>
<DL>
<DT>leftfirewall=</DT>
<DD></DD>
<DT>rightfirewall=</DT>
<DD>indicates that the gateway is doing firewalling and that<A href="manpage.d/ipsec_pluto.8.html">
pluto(8)</A> should poke holes in the firewall as required.</DD>
</DL>
<P>Set these to<VAR> yes</VAR> and Pluto will call our default script<VAR>
_updown</VAR> with appropriate arguments whenever it:</P>
<UL>
<LI>starts or stops IPsec services</LI>
<LI>brings a connection up or down</LI>
</UL>
<P>The supplied default<VAR> _updown</VAR> script is appropriate for
simple cases using the<VAR> ipfwadm(8)</VAR> firewalling package.</P>
<H4><A name="userscript">User-written scripts</A></H4>
<P>You can also write your own script and have Pluto call it. Just put
the script's name in one of these<A href="manpage.d/ipsec.conf.5.html">
ipsec.conf(5)</A> lines:</P>
<DL>
<DT>leftupdown=</DT>
<DD></DD>
<DT>rightupdown=</DT>
<DD>specifies a script to call instead of our default script<VAR>
_updown</VAR>.</DD>
</DL>
<P>Your script should take the same arguments and use the same
environment variables as<VAR> _updown</VAR>. See the "updown command"
section of the<A href="manpage.d/ipsec_pluto.8.html"> ipsec_pluto(8)</A>
man page for details.</P>
<P>Note that<STRONG> you should not modify our _updown script in place</STRONG>
. If you did that, then upgraded FreeS/WAN, the upgrade would install a
new default script, overwriting your changes.</P>
<H3><A name="ipchains.script">Scripts for ipchains or iptables</A></H3>
<P>Our<VAR> _updown</VAR> is for firewalls using<VAR> ipfwadm(8)</VAR>,
the firewall code for the 2.0 series of Linux kernels. If you are using
the more recent packages<VAR> ipchains(8)</VAR> (for 2.2 kernels) or<VAR>
iptables(8)</VAR> (2.4 kernels), then you must do one of:</P>
<UL>
<LI>use static firewall rules which are set up at boot time as described<A
href="#examplefw"> above</A> and do not need to be changed by Pluto</LI>
<LI>limit yourself to ipchains(8)'s ipfwadm(8) emulation mode in order
to use our script</LI>
<LI>write your own script and call it with<VAR> leftupdown</VAR> and<VAR>
rightupdown</VAR>.</LI>
</UL>
<P>You can write a script to do whatever you need with firewalling.
Specify its name in a<VAR> [left|right]updown=</VAR> parameter in<A href="manpage.d/ipsec.conf.5.html">
ipsec.conf(5)</A> and Pluto will automatically call it for you.</P>
<P>The arguments Pluto passes such a script are the same ones it passes
to our default _updown script, so the best way to build yours is to
copy ours and modify the copy.</P>
<P>Note, however, that<STRONG> you should not modify our _updown script
in place</STRONG>. If you did that, then upgraded FreeS/WAN, the
upgrade would install a new default script, overwriting your changes.</P>
<H2><A name="NAT">A complication: IPsec vs. NAT</A></H2>
<P><A href="glossary.html#NAT.gloss">Network Address Translation</A>,
also known as IP masquerading, is a method of allocating IP addresses
dynamically, typically in circumstances where the total number of
machines which need to access the Internet exceeds the supply of IP
addresses.</P>
<P>Any attempt to perform NAT operations on IPsec packets<EM> between
the IPsec gateways</EM> creates a basic conflict:</P>
<UL>
<LI>IPsec wants to authenticate packets and ensure they are unaltered on
a gateway-to-gateway basis</LI>
<LI>NAT rewrites packet headers as they go by</LI>
<LI>IPsec authentication fails if packets are rewritten anywhere between
the IPsec gateways</LI>
</UL>
<P>For<A href="glossary.html#AH"> AH</A>, which authenticates parts of
the packet header including source and destination IP addresses, this
is fatal. If NAT changes those fields, AH authentication fails.</P>
<P>For<A href="glossary.html#IKE"> IKE</A> and<A href="glossary.html#ESP">
ESP</A> it is not necessarily fatal, but is certainly an unwelcome
complication.</P>
<H3><A name="nat_ok">NAT on or behind the IPsec gateway works</A></H3>
<P>This problem can be avoided by having the masquerading take place<EM>
on or behind</EM> the IPsec gateway.</P>
<P>This can be done physically with two machines, one physically behind
the other. A picture, using SG to indicate IPsec<STRONG> S</STRONG>
ecurity<STRONG> G</STRONG>ateways, is:</P>
<PRE> clients --- NAT ----- SG ---------- SG
two machines</PRE>
<P>In this configuration, the actual client addresses need not be given
in the<VAR> leftsubnet=</VAR> parameter of the FreeS/WAN connection
description. The security gateway just delivers packets to the NAT box;
it needs only that machine's address. What that machine does with them
does not affect FreeS/WAN.</P>
<P>A more common setup has one machine performing both functions:</P>
<PRE> clients ----- NAT/SG ---------------SG
one machine</PRE>
<P>Here you have a choice of techniques depending on whether you want to
make your client subnet visible to clients on the other end:</P>
<UL>
<LI>If you want the single gateway to behave like the two shown above,
with your clients hidden behind the NAT, then omit the<VAR> leftsubnet=</VAR>
parameter. It then defaults to the gateway address. Clients on the
other end then talk via the tunnel only to your gateway. The gateway
takes packets emerging from the tunnel, applies normal masquerading,
and forwards them to clients.</LI>
<LI>If you want to make your client machines visible, then give the
client subnet addresses as the<VAR> leftsubnet=</VAR> parameter in the
connection description and
<DL>
<DT>either</DT>
<DD>set<VAR> leftfirewall=yes</VAR> to use the default<VAR> updown</VAR>
script</DD>
<DT>or</DT>
<DD>use your own script by giving its name in a<VAR> leftupdown=</VAR>
parameter</DD>
</DL>
These scripts are described in their own<A href="#updown"> section</A>.
<P>In this case, no masquerading is done. Packets to or from the client
subnet are encrypted or decrypted without any change to their client
subnet addresses, although of course the encapsulating packets use
gateway addresses in their headers. Clients behind the right security
gateway see a route via that gateway to the left subnet.</P>
</LI>
</UL>
<H3><A name="nat_bad">NAT between gateways is problematic</A></H3>
<P>We recommend not trying to build IPsec connections which pass through
a NAT machine. This setup poses problems:</P>
<PRE> clients --- SG --- NAT ---------- SG</PRE>
<P>If you must try it, some references are:</P>
<UL>
<LI>Jean_Francois Nadeau's document on doing<A href="http://jixen.tripod.com/#NATed gateways">
IPsec behind NAT</A></LI>
<LI><A href="web.html#VPN.masq">VPN masquerade patches</A> to make a
Linux NAT box handle IPsec packets correctly</LI>
</UL>
<H3><A name="NAT.ref">Other references on NAT and IPsec</A></H3>
<P>Other documents which may be relevant include:</P>
<UL>
<LI>an Internet Draft on<A href="http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-aboba-nat-ipsec-04.txt">
IPsec and NAT</A> which may eventually evolve into a standard solution
for this problem.</LI>
<LI>an informational<A href="http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/rfc/rfc2709.txt">
RFC</A>,<CITE> Security Model with Tunnel-mode IPsec for NAT Domains</CITE>
.</LI>
<LI>an<A href="http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/759/ipj_3-4/ipj_3-4_nat.html">
article</A> in Cisco's<CITE> Internet Protocol Journal</CITE></LI>
</UL>
<H2><A name="complications">Other complications</A></H2>
<P>Of course simply allowing UDP 500 and ESP packets is not the whole
story. Various other issues arise in making IPsec and packet filters
co-exist and even co-operate. Some of them are summarised below.</P>
<H3><A name="through">IPsec<EM> through</EM></A> the gateway</H3>
<P>Basic IPsec packet filtering rules deal only with packets addressed
to or sent from your IPsec gateway.</P>
<P>It is a separate policy decision whether to permit such packets to
pass through the gateway so that client machines can build end-to-end
IPsec tunnels of their own. This may not be practical if you are using<A
href="#NAT"> NAT (IP masquerade)</A> on your gateway, and may conflict
with some corporate security policies.</P>
<P>Where possible, allowing this is almost certainly a good idea. Using
IPsec on an end-to-end basis is more secure than gateway-to-gateway.</P>
<P>Doing it is quite simple. You just need firewall rules that allow UDP
port 500 and protocols 50 and 51 to pass through your gateway. If you
wish, you can of course restrict this to certain hosts.</P>
<H3><A name="ipsec_only">Preventing non-IPsec traffic</A></H3>
You can also filter<EM> everything but</EM> UDP port 500 and ESP or AH
to restrict traffic to IPsec only, either for anyone communicating with
your host or just for specific partners.
<P>One application of this is for the telecommuter who might have:</P>
<PRE> Sunset==========West------------------East ================= firewall --- the Internet
home network untrusted net corporate network</PRE>
<P>The subnet on the right is 0.0.0.0/0, the whole Internet. The West
gateway is set up so that it allows only IPsec packets to East in or
out.</P>
<P>This configuration is used in AT&T Research's network. For details,
see the<A href="intro.html#applied"> papers</A> links in our
introduction.</P>
<P>Another application would be to set up firewall rules so that an
internal machine, such as an employees-only web server, could not talk
to the outside world except via specific IPsec tunnels.</P>
<H3><A name="unknowngate">Filtering packets from unknown gateways</A></H3>
<P>It is possible to use firewall rules to restrict UDP 500, ESP and AH
packets so that these packets are accepted only from known gateways.
This is not strictly necessary since FreeS/WAN will discard packets
from unknown gateways. You might, however, want to do it for any of a
number of reasons. For example:</P>
<UL>
<LI>Arguably, "belt and suspenders" is the sensible approach to
security. If you can block a potential attack in two ways, use both.
The only question is whether to look for a third way after implementing
the first two.</LI>
<LI>Some admins may prefer to use the firewall code this way because
they prefer firewall logging to FreeS/WAN's logging.</LI>
<LI>You may need it to implement your security policy. Consider an
employee working at home, and a policy that says traffic from the home
system to the Internet at large must go first via IPsec to the
corporate LAN and then out to the Internet via the corporate firewall.
One way to do that is to make<VAR> ipsec0</VAR> the default route on
the home gateway and provide exceptions only for UDP 500 and ESP to the
corporate gateway. Everything else is then routed via the tunnel to the
corporate gateway.</LI>
</UL>
<P>It is not possible to use only static firewall rules for this
filtering if you do not know the other gateways' IP addresses in
advance, for example if you have "road warriors" who may connect from a
different address each time or if want to do<A href="glossary.html#carpediem">
opportunistic encryption</A> to arbitrary gateways. In these cases, you
can accept UDP 500 IKE packets from anywhere, then use the<A href="#updown">
updown</A> script feature of<A href="manpage.d/ipsec_pluto.8.html">
pluto(8)</A> to dynamically adjust firewalling for each negotiated
tunnel.</P>
<P>Firewall packet filtering does not much reduce the risk of a<A href="glossary.html#DOS">
denial of service attack</A> on FreeS/WAN. The firewall can drop
packets from unknown gateways, but KLIPS does that quite efficiently
anyway, so you gain little. The firewall cannot drop otherwise
legitmate packets that fail KLIPS authentication, so it cannot protect
against an attack designed to exhaust resources by making FreeS/WAN
perform many expensive authentication operations.</P>
<P>In summary, firewall filtering of IPsec packets from unknown gateways
is possible but not strictly necessary.</P>
<H2><A name="otherfilter">Other packet filters</A></H2>
<P>When the IPsec gateway is also acting as your firewall, other packet
filtering rules will be in play. In general, those are outside the
scope of this document. See our<A href="web.html#firewall.linux"> Linux
firewall links</A> for information. There are a few types of packet,
however, which can affect the operation of FreeS/WAN or of diagnostic
tools commonly used with it. These are discussed below.</P>
<H3><A name="ICMP">ICMP filtering</A></H3>
<P><A href="glossary.html#ICMP.gloss">ICMP</A> is the<STRONG> I</STRONG>
nternet<STRONG> C</STRONG>ontrol<STRONG> M</STRONG>essage<STRONG> P</STRONG>
rotocol. It is used for messages between IP implementations themselves,
whereas IP used is used between the clients of those implementations.
ICMP is, unsurprisingly, used for control messages. For example, it is
used to notify a sender that a desination is not reachable, or to tell
a router to reroute certain packets elsewhere.</P>
<P>ICMP handling is tricky for firewalls.</P>
<UL>
<LI>You definitely want some ICMP messages to get through; things won't
work without them. For example, your clients need to know if some
destination they ask for is unreachable.</LI>
<LI>On the other hand, you do equally definitely do not want untrusted
folk sending arbitrary control messages to your machines. Imagine what
someone moderately clever and moderately malicious could do to you,
given control of your network's routing.</LI>
</UL>
<P>ICMP does not use ports. Messages are distinguished by a "message
type" field and, for some types, by an additional "code" field. The
definitive list of types and codes is on the<A href="http://www.iana.org">
IANA</A> site.</P>
<P>One expert uses this definition for ICMP message types to be dropped
at the firewall.</P>
<PRE># ICMP types which lack socially redeeming value.
# 5 Redirect
# 9 Router Advertisement
# 10 Router Selection
# 15 Information Request
# 16 Information Reply
# 17 Address Mask Request
# 18 Address Mask Reply
badicmp='5 9 10 15 16 17 18'</PRE>
<P>A more conservative approach would be to make a list of allowed types
and drop everything else.</P>
<P>Whichever way you do it, your ICMP filtering rules on a FreeS/WAN
gateway should allow at least the following ICMP packet types:</P>
<DL>
<DT>echo (type 8)</DT>
<DD></DD>
<DT>echo reply (type 0)</DT>
<DD>These are used by ping(1). We recommend allowing both types through
the tunnel and to or from your gateway's external interface, since
ping(1) is an essential testing tool.
<P>It is fairly common for firewalls to drop ICMP echo packets addressed
to machines behind the firewall. If that is your policy, please create
an exception for such packets arriving via an IPsec tunnel, at least
during intial testing of those tunnels.</P>
</DD>
<DT>destination unreachable (type 3)</DT>
<DD>This is used, with code 4 (Fragmentation Needed and Don't Fragment
was Set) in the code field, to control<A href="glossary.html#pathMTU">
path MTU discovery</A>. Since IPsec processing adds headers, enlarges
packets and may cause fragmentation, an IPsec gateway should be able to
send and receive these ICMP messages<STRONG> on both inside and outside
interfaces</STRONG>.</DD>
</DL>
<H3><A name="traceroute">UDP packets for traceroute</A></H3>
<P>The traceroute(1) utility uses UDP port numbers from 33434 to
approximately 33633. Generally, these should be allowed through for
troubleshooting.</P>
<P>Some firewalls drop these packets to prevent outsiders exploring the
protected network with traceroute(1). If that is your policy, consider
creating an exception for such packets arriving via an IPsec tunnel, at
least during intial testing of those tunnels.</P>
<H3><A name="l2tp">UDP for L2TP</A></H3>
<P> Windows 2000 does, and products designed for compatibility with it
may, build<A href="glossary.html#L2TP"> L2TP</A> tunnels over IPsec
connections.</P>
<P>For this to work, you must allow UDP protocol 1701 packets coming out
of your tunnels to continue to their destination. You can, and probably
should, block such packets to or from your external interfaces, but
allow them from<VAR> ipsec0</VAR>.</P>
<P>See also our Windows 2000<A href="interop.html#win2k"> interoperation
discussion</A>.</P>
<H2><A name="packets">How it all works: IPsec packet details</A></H2>
<P>IPsec uses three main types of packet:</P>
<DL>
<DT><A href="glossary.html#IKE">IKE</A> uses<STRONG> the UDP protocol
and port 500</STRONG>.</DT>
<DD>Unless you are using only (less secure, not recommended) manual
keying, you need IKE to negotiate connection parameters, acceptable
algorithms, key sizes and key setup. IKE handles everything required to
set up, rekey, repair or tear down IPsec connections.</DD>
<DT><A href="glossary.html#ESP">ESP</A> is<STRONG> protocol number 50</STRONG>
</DT>
<DD>This is required for encrypted connections.</DD>
<DT><A href="glossary.html#AH">AH</A> is<STRONG> protocol number 51</STRONG>
</DT>
<DD>This can be used where only authentication, not encryption, is
required.</DD>
</DL>
<P>All of those packets should have appropriate IPsec gateway addresses
in both the to and from IP header fields. Firewall rules can check this
if you wish, though it is not strictly necessary. This is discussed in
more detail<A href="#unknowngate"> later</A>.</P>
<P>IPsec processing of incoming packets authenticates them then removes
the ESP or AH header and decrypts if necessary. Successful processing
exposes an inner packet which is then delivered back to the firewall
machinery, marked as having arrived on an<VAR> ipsec[0-3]</VAR>
interface. Firewall rules can use that interface label to distinguish
these packets from unencrypted packets which are labelled with the
physical interface they arrived on (or perhaps with a non-IPsec virtual
interface such as<VAR> ppp0</VAR>).</P>
<P>One of our users sent a mailing list message with a<A href="http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/linux-ipsec/html/2000/12/msg00006.html">
diagram</A> of the packet flow.</P>
<H3><A name="noport">ESP and AH do not have ports</A></H3>
<P>Some protocols, such as TCP and UDP, have the notion of ports. Others
protocols, including ESP and AH, do not. Quite a few IPsec newcomers
have become confused on this point. There are no ports<EM> in</EM> the
ESP or AH protocols, and no ports used<EM> for</EM> them. For these
protocols,<EM> the idea of ports is completely irrelevant</EM>.</P>
<H3><A name="header">Header layout</A></H3>
<P>The protocol numbers for ESP or AH are used in the 'next header'
field of the IP header. On most non-IPsec packets, that field would
have one of:</P>
<UL>
<LI>1 for ICMP</LI>
<LI>4 for IP-in-IP encapsulation</LI>
<LI>6 for TCP</LI>
<LI>17 for UDP</LI>
<LI>... or one of about 100 other possibilities listed by<A href="http://www.iana.org">
IANA</A></LI>
</UL>
<P>Each header in the sequence tells what the next header will be. IPsec
adds headers for ESP or AH near the beginning of the sequence. The
original headers are kept and the 'next header' fields adjusted so that
all headers can be correctly interpreted.</P>
<P>For example, using<STRONG> [</STRONG><STRONG> ]</STRONG> to indicate
data protected by ESP and unintelligible to an eavesdropper between the
gateways:</P>
<UL>
<LI>a simple packet might have only IP and TCP headers with:
<UL>
<LI>IP header says next header --> TCP</LI>
<LI>TCP header port number --> which process to send data to</LI>
<LI>data</LI>
</UL>
</LI>
<LI>with ESP<A href="glossary.html#transport"> transport mode</A>
encapsulation, that packet would have:
<UL>
<LI>IP header says next header --> ESP</LI>
<LI>ESP header<STRONG> [</STRONG> says next --> TCP</LI>
<LI>TCP header port number --> which process to send data to</LI>
<LI>data<STRONG> ]</STRONG></LI>
</UL>
Note that the IP header is outside ESP protection, visible to an
attacker, and that the final destination must be the gateway.</LI>
<LI>with ESP in<A href="glossary.html#tunnel"> tunnel mode</A>, we might
have:
<UL>
<LI>IP header says next header --> ESP</LI>
<LI>ESP header<STRONG> [</STRONG> says next --> IP</LI>
<LI>IP header says next header --> TCP</LI>
<LI>TCP header port number --> which process to send data to</LI>
<LI>data<STRONG> ]</STRONG></LI>
</UL>
Here the inner IP header is protected by ESP, unreadable by an
attacker. Also, the inner header can have a different IP address than
the outer IP header, so the decrypted packet can be routed from the
IPsec gateway to a final destination which may be another machine.</LI>
</UL>
<P>Part of the ESP header itself is encrypted, which is why the<STRONG>
[</STRONG> indicating protected data appears in the middle of some
lines above. The next header field of the ESP header is protected. This
makes<A href="glossary.html#traffic"> traffic analysis</A> more
difficult. The next header field would tell an eavesdropper whether
your packet was UDP to the gateway, TCP to the gateway, or encapsulated
IP. It is better not to give this information away. A clever attacker
may deduce some of it from the pattern of packet sizes and timings, but
we need not make it easy.</P>
<P>IPsec allows various combinations of these to match local policies,
including combinations that use both AH and ESP headers or that nest
multiple copies of these headers.</P>
<P>For example, suppose my employer has an IPsec VPN running between two
offices so all packets travelling between the gateways for those
offices are encrypted. If gateway policies allow it (The admins could
block UDP 500 and protocols 50 and 51 to disallow it), I can build an
IPsec tunnel from my desktop to a machine in some remote office. Those
packets will have one ESP header throughout their life, for my
end-to-end tunnel. For part of the route, however, they will also have
another ESP layer for the corporate VPN's encapsulation. The whole
header scheme for a packet on the Internet might be:</P>
<UL>
<LI>IP header (with gateway address) says next header --> ESP</LI>
<LI>ESP header<STRONG> [</STRONG> says next --> IP</LI>
<LI>IP header (with receiving machine address) says next header --> ESP</LI>
<LI>ESP header<STRONG> [</STRONG> says next --> TCP</LI>
<LI>TCP header port number --> which process to send data to</LI>
<LI>data<STRONG> ]]</STRONG></LI>
</UL>
<P>The first ESP (outermost) header is for the corporate VPN. The inner
ESP header is for the secure machine-to-machine link.</P>
<H3><A name="dhr">DHR on the updown script</A></H3>
<P>Here are some mailing list comments from<A href="manpage.d/ipsec_pluto.8.html">
pluto(8)</A> developer Hugh Redelmeier on an earlier draft of this
document:</P>
<PRE>There are many important things left out
- firewalling is important but must reflect (implement) policy. Since
policy isn't the same for all our customers, and we're not experts,
we should concentrate on FW and MASQ interactions with FreeS/WAN.
- we need a diagram to show packet flow WITHIN ONE MACHINE, assuming
IKE, IPsec, FW, and MASQ are all done on that machine. The flow is
obvious if the components are run on different machines (trace the
cables).
IKE input:
+ packet appears on public IF, as UDP port 500
+ input firewalling rules are applied (may discard)
+ Pluto sees the packet.
IKE output:
+ Pluto generates the packet & writes to public IF, UDP port 500
+ output firewalling rules are applied (may discard)
+ packet sent out public IF
IPsec input, with encapsulated packet, outer destination of this host:
+ packet appears on public IF, protocol 50 or 51. If this
packet is the result of decapsulation, it will appear
instead on the paired ipsec IF.
+ input firewalling rules are applied (but packet is opaque)
+ KLIPS decapsulates it, writes result to paired ipsec IF
+ input firewalling rules are applied to resulting packet
as input on ipsec IF
+ if the destination of the packet is this machine, the
packet is passed on to the appropriate protocol handler.
If the original packet was encapsulated more than once
and the new outer destination is this machine, that
handler will be KLIPS.
+ otherwise:
* routing is done for the resulting packet. This may well
direct it into KLIPS for encoding or encrypting. What
happens then is described elsewhere.
* forwarding firewalling rules are applied
* output firewalling rules are applied
* the packet is sent where routing specified
IPsec input, with encapsulated packet, outer destination of another host:
+ packet appears on some IF, protocol 50 or 51
+ input firewalling rules are applied (but packet is opaque)
+ routing selects where to send the packet
+ forwarding firewalling rules are applied (but packet is opaque)
+ packet forwarded, still encapsulated
IPsec output, from this host or from a client:
+ if from a client, input firewalling rules are applied as the
packet arrives on the private IF
+ routing directs the packet to an ipsec IF (this is how the
system decides KLIPS processing is required)
+ if from a client, forwarding firewalling rules are applied
+ KLIPS eroute mechanism matches the source and destination
to registered eroutes, yielding a SPI group. This dictates
processing, and where the resulting packet is to be sent
(the destinations SG and the nexthop).
+ output firewalling is not applied to the resulting
encapsulated packet
- Until quite recently, KLIPS would double encapsulate packets that
didn't strictly need to be. Firewalling should be prepared for
those packets showing up as ESP and AH protocol input packets on
an ipsec IF.
- MASQ processing seems to be done as if it were part of the
forwarding firewall processing (this should be verified).
- If a firewall is being used, it is likely the case that it needs to
be adjusted whenever IPsec SAs are added or removed. Pluto invokes
a script to do this (and to adjust routing) at suitable times. The
default script is only suitable for ipfwadm-managed firewalls. Under
LINUX 2.2.x kernels, ipchains can be managed by ipfwadm (emulation),
but ipchains more powerful if manipulated using the ipchains command.
In this case, a custom updown script must be used.
We think that the flexibility of ipchains precludes us supplying an
updown script that would be widely appropriate.</PRE>
<HR>
<A HREF="toc.html">Contents</A>
<A HREF="manpages.html">Previous</A>
<A HREF="trouble.html">Next</A>
</BODY>
</HTML>
