When implementing NTP servers, it’s always an interesting part to check whether the server is “up and running” and reachable from the clients. While I’ve done many basic NTP checks out of Linux, I lacked a small docu to do this with Windows. It turned out that there’s no need for third-party software because Windows already includes a tool to test NTP connections: w32tm.
During my IPv6 classes, I discovered a (minor) bug at the NGFW from Palo Alto Networks: ICMPv6 error messages, such as “time exceeded” (type 3) as a reply of traceroute, or “destination unreachable” (type 1) as a reply of a drop policy, are not correctly sourced from the IPv6 address of the data interface itself, but from the unspecified address “::”. Here are some details:
Als netzwerktechnisches Spielkind beschäftige ich mich nicht nur mit den Netzwerken großer Firmenumgebungen, sondern auch mit meinem eigenen Anschluss daheim. Vor vielen Jahren habe ich dem echten Dual-Stack Anschluss der Deutschen Telekom mal auf die Finger geguckt – heute ist die Variante der Deutschen Glasfaser an der Reihe, welches zwar ein Dual Stack, aber ohne eigene öffentliche IPv4 Adresse ist. Quasi ein halbes DS-Lite. Kernfrage für mich war: Kann ich die Fritzbox (mit ihren mitgelieferten Presets für verschiedene ISPs) durch eine echte Enterprise-Firewall ersetzen, die ja leider nicht unbedingt alle Sprecharten wie PPPoE im Subinterface oder PPP IPv6CP unterstützen.
TL;DR: DHCP, DHCPv6-PD, RA.
For my IPv6 training classes, I was missing a capture of a stateful DHCPv6 address assignment. That is: M-flag within the RA, followed by DHCPv6 messages handing out an IPv6 address among others. Therefore, I set up a DHCPv6 server on an Infoblox grid and furthermore used a Palo Alto NGFW as a DHCPv6 relay to it. I captured on two points: from the client’s point of view (getting to the relay) and from the server’s point of view (unicast messages from the relay). And since I was already there anyway, I additionally captured the same process for DHCPv4. So, here we go:
At SharkFest’22 EU, the Annual Wireshark User and Developer Conference, I attended a beginners’ course called “Network Troubleshooting from Scratch”, taught by the great Jasper Bongertz. In the end, we had some high-level discussions concerning various things, one of them was the insight that TCP RSTs are not only sent from a server in case the port is closed, but are also commonly sent (aka spoofed) from firewalls in case a security policy denies the connection. Key question: Can you distinguish between those spoofed vs. real TCP RSTs? Initially, I thought: no, you can’t, cause the firewalls out there do a great job.
It turned out: you can!
In general, Network Address Translation (NAT) solves some problems but should be avoided wherever possible. It has nothing to do with security and is only a short-term solution on the way to IPv6. (Yes, I know, the last 20 years have proven that NAT is used everywhere every time. ?) This applies to all kinds of NATs for IPv4 (SNAT, DNAT, PAT) as well as for NPTv6 and NAT66.
However, there are two types of NATs that do not only change the network addresses but do a translation between the two Internet Protocols, that is IPv4 <-> IPv6 and vice versa. Let’s focus on NAT46 this time. In which situations is it used and why? Supplemented by a configuration guide for the FortiGates, a downloadable PCAP and Wireshark screenshots.
The other day I just wanted to capture some basic Linux traceroutes but ended up troubleshooting different traceroute commands and Wireshark display anomalies. Sigh. Anyway, I just added a few Linux traceroute captures – legacy and IPv6 – to the Ultimate PCAP. Here are some details:
Fortunately, there was a SharkFest – the “Wireshark Developer and User Conference” – this year in Europe again. I was there and gave an IPv6 Crash Course likewise. Yeah! It’s my favourite topic, you know. 75 minutes full of content, hence the name crash course.
Here are my slides as well as the video recording. If you want a crash course for IPv6, here we go:
For some reason, I came across a blog post by Gian Paolo called Small servers. This reminded me of some fairly old network protocols (that no one uses as far as I know) that are not in my Ultimate PCAP yet. Hence I took some minutes, captured them, and took some Wireshark screenshots. They are: echo, discard, daytime, chargen, and time. Mostly via TCP and UDP, and, as you would have expected, IPv6 and legacy IP.
I’m aware that this is not of interest to most of you. :) But for the sake of completeness, and because I love adding new protocols to the Ultimate PCAP, I added them though.
Wenn es im Netzwerk knirscht, versuchen Admins den Fehler in Analyse-Tools wie Wireshark anhand von Paketmitschnitten einzukreisen. Jedoch hat der Herr viel mehr Netzwerkprotokolle gegeben, als sich ein Admin-Hirn in allen Details merken kann. Eine Referenzdatei, die zahlreiche korrekte Protokollabläufe enthält, gibt Orientierung.
Haben Sie mal Netzwerkmitschnitte untersucht, ohne zu wissen, was genau Sie suchen? Mit Wireshark wird das leicht zu einer Odyssee: Das Analysewerkzeug filtert zwar fabelhaft, reagiert bei großen Datenmengen aber schnell zäh.
Was bei solchen Problemstellungen hilft ist: tshark! Ein Tool, mit welchem Sie auch große Packet Captures einfach anhand gängiger Kriterien durchforsten können.
Palo Alto firewalls have a nice packet capture feature. It enables you to capture packets as they traverse the firewall. While you might be familiar with the four stages that the Palo can capture (firewall, drop, transmit, receive), it’s sometimes hard to set the correct filter – especially when it comes to NAT scenarios. (At least it was hard for me…)
I am using the packet capture feature very often for scenarios in which the IP connections are in fact working (hence no problems at the tx/rx level nor on the security policy/profile) but where I want to verify certain details of the connection itself. I’m simply using the Palo as a capturing device here, similar to a SPAN port on a switch. (Yes, I’m aware of all disadvantages of not using a real TAP and a real capture device.) In the end, I want a single pcap which shows all relevant packets for a client-server connection, even if NAT is in place. Wireshark should be able to correlate the incoming/outgoing packets into a single TCP stream. Furthermore, I definitely want to use a filter to limit the amount of captured packets. This is how I’m doing it:
As we have just set up a TLS capable syslog server, let’s configure a Palo Alto Networks firewall to send syslog messages via an encrypted channel. While it was quite straightforward to configure I ran into a couple of (unresolved) problems as I added and deleted some syslog servers and their certificates. Uhm.