Endlich war es soweit: Das eigene Haus stand vor der Tür und Johannes hat sich um die Netzwerkverkabelung und das Netzwerkdesign gekümmert. Hier eine Zusammenfassung meiner Gedanken und deren Umsetzung – offen für kritische Rückfragen, Verbesserungsvorschläge und Bewunderungsbekundungen. :)
Again and again, I am adding some protocol samples to the Ultimate PCAP. Just for reference. And because I can. ;D
PolarProxy is a transparent TLS proxy that outputs decrypted TLS traffic as PCAP files. PolarProxy doesn’t interfere with the tunnelled data in any way, it simply takes the incoming TLS stream, decrypts it, re-encrypts it and forwards it to the destination. Because of this PolarProxy can be used as a generic TLS decryption proxy for just about any protocol that uses TLS encryption, including HTTPS, HTTP/2, DoH, DoT, FTPS, SMTPS, IMAPS, POP3S and SIP-TLS.
PolarProxy is primarily designed for inspecting otherwise encrypted traffic from malware, such as botnets that use HTTPS for command-and-control of victim PCs. Other popular use cases for PolarProxy is to inspect encrypted traffic from IoT devices and other embedded products or to analyze otherwise encrypted traffic from mobile phones and tablets. The fact that PolarProxy exports the decrypted traffic in a decrypted format without any TLS headers also enables users to inspect the decrypted traffic with products that don’t support TLS decryption, such as intrusion detection and network forensics products like Suricata, Zeek and NetworkMiner.
I got an interesting question through the comments section on my blog:
Quite a good questions. Let’s have a look:
The other day I wanted to verify whether a service running on my Linux server was listening on IPv6 as well as IPv4. It turned out that it wasn’t that easy to answer – if at all.
I was missing a generic layer 4 ping in my toolbox. Initially searching for a mere TCP ping, I have found Nping which completely satisfies my needs and gives so much more. ;)
What’s a layer 4 ping, and why? –> A normal ping (= ICMP echo-request) reveals whether the destination IP address, that is: the mere server/VM, is up and running. That’s great for a layer 3 networker since routing to and from the destination is already working. However, it does NOT reveal whether or not a service at layer 4 (TCP or UDP) is up and running as well. That’s what a layer 4 ping is about: sending TCP SYNs to the port in question, waiting for a “SYN ACK” (port is listening) or “RST”/no reply (port is not available). Common use cases: Waiting for a service to start again after an upgrade, or waiting for new firewall policies (to allow or deny) a certain port.
I am constantly trying to add more protocols to the Ultimate PCAP. Hence I used some time in my (old) Cisco lab to configure and capture the following protocols: IS-IS, GLBP, and VRRP. And since Alexis La Goutte sent me some CAPWAP traffic, this protocol is also added. All packets are now found in another update of the Ultimate PCAP. Here are some details:
To get a first impression of a trace file I used Wireshark’s protocol hierarchy – and boy, that’s a lot of protocols. This was not exactly what I was looking for: This single trace file holds snippets from 2014 to 2020 with a myriad of protocols and IP networks. Unfortunately, it’s nothing like the protocol mix found in a network analysis project.
Nevertheless, the trace file caught my interest as a long time Wireshark user. After nearly 20 years of network analysis, I had my own collection of traces with a few odd frames. To my big surprise, I had recorded a few protocols that are not yet part of the Ultimate PCAP.
So here is my small contribution to this collection:
More than 6 years ago (!) I published a tutorial on how to set up an IPsec VPN tunnel between a FortiGate firewall and a Cisco ASA. As time flies by, ASA is now able to terminate route-based VPN tunnels (which is great!), we have IKEv2 running everywhere and enhanced security proposals. Hence, it’s time for an update:
More than 6 years ago (!) I published a tutorial on how to set up an IPsec VPN tunnel between a Palo Alto Networks firewall and a Cisco ASA. As time flies by, ASA is now able to terminate route-based VPN tunnels (which is great!), we have IKEv2 running everywhere and enhanced security proposals. Hence, it’s time for an update:
The NTP Pool is a volunteer organization that provides time synchronization service to hundreds of millions of computers worldwide. A typical client might query a particular NTP Pool server ~10-60 times/hour. Wikipedia lists some abusive clients that far exceeded the normal rate. This wastes NTP server resources, may interfere with other clients, and can trigger DDoS protections. In late 2019, a software update made some FortiGate firewalls very unfriendly to the NTP Pool.
This is a guest blogpost by Martin Langer, Ph.D. student for “Secured Time Synchronization Using Packet-Based Time Protocols” at Ostfalia University of Applied Sciences, Germany.
The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) published the Network Time Security protocol (NTS) as RFC 8915 on October 1, 2020. This new standard offers security mechanisms for the widely used Network Time Protocol v4 (NTPv4), which has been operated mostly unsecured until now. After almost eight years of development, global collaboration, and many interoperability tests of leading NTP software developers, NTS represents a mature security protocol. In this post, I’ll give you a short overview of the development progress of NTS and provide a list of public implementations and NTS secured time servers…
This is a really nice feature: you can run iperf3 directly on a FortiGate to speed-test your network connections. It’s basically an iperf3 client. Using some public iperf servers you can test your Internet bandwidth; using some internal servers you can test your own routed/switched networks, VPNs, etc. However, the maximum throughput for the test is CPU dependent. So please be careful when interpreting the results. Here we go:
NTP (Network Time Protocol) messages are sometimes rate-limited or blocked entirely by Internet operators. This little-known “NTP filtering” was put into place several years ago in response to DDoS (Distributed Denial of Service) attacks. NTP filtering may drop NTP messages based on rate or message size. Let’s dig into it: Continue reading NTP Filtering (Delay & Blockage) in the Internet