[strongSwan] Planning an upgrade of strongswan from 4.4.1 to 5.2.1
cjf at linuxforce.net
Sat Jan 9 13:32:07 CET 2016
I added those two lines to the conn %default section. Then I ran "ipsec
restart". There failure messages have changed slightly:
Jan 9 07:23:18 cw1 ipsec: 12[IKE] 184.108.40.206 is initiating a Main Mode IKE_SA
Jan 9 07:23:18 cw1 ipsec: 12[CFG] received proposals: IKE:3DES_CBC/HMAC_SHA1_96/PRF_HMAC_SHA
Jan 9 07:23:18 cw1 ipsec: 12[CFG] configured proposals: IKE:AES_CBC_128/HMAC_SHA2_256_128/PR
Jan 9 07:23:18 cw1 ipsec: 12[IKE] no proposal found
Jan 9 07:23:18 cw1 ipsec: 12[ENC] generating INFORMATIONAL_V1 request 1836105202 [ N(NO_PROP
So I tried
ike = 3des-sha1-modp1024!
esp = 3des-sha1-modp1024!
But now I run into this:
Jan 9 07:29:28 cw1 ipsec: 13[IKE] 220.127.116.11 is initiating a Main Mode IKE_SA
Jan 9 07:29:29 cw1 charon: 15[NET] received packet: from 18.104.22.168 to 22.214.171.124 (200 bytes)
Jan 9 07:29:29 cw1 charon: 15[ENC] parsed ID_PROT request 0 [ KE No V ]
Jan 9 07:29:29 cw1 charon: 15[ENC] received unknown vendor ID: 70:03:cb:c1:09:7d:be:9c:26:00:ba:69:83:bc:8b:35
Jan 9 07:29:29 cw1 charon: 15[IKE] sending cert request for "C=US, [redacted ...]"
Jan 9 07:29:29 cw1 charon: 15[IKE] ENCRYPTION_ALGORITHM 3DES_CBC (key size 0) not supported!
Jan 9 07:29:29 cw1 charon: 15[IKE] key derivation for RSA signature failed
Jan 9 07:29:29 cw1 charon: 15[ENC] generating INFORMATIONAL_V1 request 1044526370 [ HASH N(INVAL_KE) ]
And I'm stuck again.
On Sat, Jan 09, 2016 at 02:15:51PM +0800, Rayson Zhu wrote:
> Hi, try specifying IKE & ESP cipher suits explicitly for all peers. For
> ike = aes128-sha256-modp2048!
> esp = aes128-sha256-modp2048!
> On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 2:04 PM, CJ Fearnley <cjf at linuxforce.net> wrote:
> > Well, my upgrade from strongswan 4.4.1-5.7 to 5.2.1-6+deb8u1 (Debian
> > Squeeze to Jessie on new hardware) is not going well. No connections
> > have re-established.
> > I'm using the same ipsec.conf that worked on 4.4.1-5.7. See the referenced
> > e-mail from Dec 9th when I asked about the upgrade process.
> > Each client is generating this pattern in the logs over and over:
> > Jan 9 01:01:07 cw1 charon: 06[IKE] 126.96.36.199 is initiating a Main
> > Mode IKE_SA
> > Jan 9 01:01:07 cw1 charon: 06[CFG] received proposals:
> > IKE:3DES_CBC/HMAC_SHA1_96/PRF_HMAC_SHA1/MODP_1024
> > Jan 9 01:01:07 cw1 charon: 06[CFG] configured proposals:
> > IKE:AES_CBC_128/HMAC_SHA1_96/PRF_HMAC_SHA1/MODP_2048,
> > IKE:3DES_CBC/HMAC_SHA1_96/PRF_HMAC_SHA1/MODP_1536,
> > IKE:AES_CBC_128/AES_CBC_192/AES_CBC_256/HMAC_SHA1_96/HMAC_MD5_96/HMAC_SHA2_256_128/HMAC_SHA2_384_192/HMAC_SHA2_512_256/AES_XCBC_96/PRF_HMAC_SHA1/PRF_HMAC_MD5/PRF_HMAC_SHA2_256/PRF_HMAC_SHA2_384/PRF_HMAC_SHA2_512/PRF_AES128_XCBC/MODP_2048/MODP_2048_224/MODP_2048_256/MODP_1536/MODP_3072/MODP_4096/MODP_8192/MODP_1024/MODP_1024_160
> > Jan 9 01:01:07 cw1 charon: 06[IKE] no proposal found
> > Jan 9 01:01:07 cw1 charon: 06[ENC] generating INFORMATIONAL_V1 request
> > 3117715548 [ N(NO_PROP) ]
> > I have double checked that I copied from backups the contents of
> > /etc/ipsec.d/cacerts
> > /etc/ipsec.d/certs
> > /etc/ipsec.d/private
> > Do I need to add some encryption plugins? Or can I simply specify using
> > the ike= configuration option for the actual algorithm used by the
> > Netgears FVG318?
> > I tried adding the sha1 hmac xcbc and x509 modules to the load = line
> > in /etc/strongswan.d/charon.conf. No go.
> > The output of
> > $ sudo ipsec version
> > Linux strongSwan U5.2.1/K3.16.0-4-amd64
> > Institute for Internet Technologies and Applications
> > University of Applied Sciences Rapperswil, Switzerland
> > See 'ipsec --copyright' for copyright information.
> > On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 08:12:42PM -0500, CJ Fearnley wrote:
> > > I have a working strongswan system running the Debian package at version
> > > 4.4.1-5.7 (Squeeze oldoldstable). In a week or so, I'll be replacing
> > > the box with a fresh install of Debian running 5.2.1-6+deb8u1 (Jessie).
> > >
> > > I have two questions:
> > >
> > > 1. Have any config options changed in strongswan that I need to study?
> > >
> > > 2. Are there any issues with strongswan in connecting with a Netgear
> > > FVG318 of various vintages. All of our clients connect with this
> > > model of Netgear which is the only thing we've been able to get
> > > working with certificates.
> > >
> > > Here is a cleaned up version of /etc/ipsec.conf:
> > >
> > > config setup
> > > charonstart=yes
> > > plutostart=yes
> > > virtual_private=%v4:
> > 10.0.0.0/8,%v4:192.168.0.0/16,%v4:172.16.0.0/12,%v4:!192.168.101.0/24
> > > uniqueids=no
> > >
> > > conn %default
> > > mobike=no
> > > keyexchange=ikev1
> > > left=xxx.xxx.xxx.xx
> > > leftsubnet=192.168.xxx.0/24
> > > auto=add
> > >
> > > conn someplace
> > > rightsubnet=192.168.yyy.0/24
> > > right=%any
> > > leftid="C=US, ST=ST, L=Some City, O=Some Company, CN=
> > something.example.com, E=some at example.com"
> > > leftcert=something.crt
> > > leftsendcert=always
> > >
> > > plus a half-dozen others of similar nature.
> > >
> > > All of the systems that connect to this are various vintages of the
> > > Netgear FVG318.
> > >
> > > Are there any known compatibility issues with strongswan 5.2.1 and the
> > > Netgear FVG318?
> > >
> > > Have there been any relevant changes to the syntax of ipsec.conf since
> > > 4.4.1 and 5.2.1-6+deb8u1?
> > >
> > > Any general strongswan relevant advice for planning such an upgrade?
> > --
> > CJ Fearnley | LinuxForce Inc.
> > cjf at LinuxForce.net | IT Projects & Systems Maintenance
> > http://www.LinuxForce.net | http://blog.remoteresponder.net
> > _______________________________________________
> > Users mailing list
> > Users at lists.strongswan.org
> > https://lists.strongswan.org/mailman/listinfo/users
CJ Fearnley | LinuxForce Inc.
cjf at LinuxForce.net | IT Projects & Systems Maintenance
http://www.LinuxForce.net | http://blog.remoteresponder.net
More information about the Users