RE: [fw-wiz] Odd PIX / router behavior

From: Claussen, Ken (Ken_at_kccweb.com)
Date: 10/30/03

  • Next message: Andrea Pasquinucci: "Re: [fw-wiz] Why blocking bogons buys you nothing"
    To: "Melson, Paul" <PMelson@sequoianet.com>, <firewall-wizards@honor.icsalabs.com>
    Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 10:35:58 -0500
    
    

    Paul,
    I would venture to say that the loopback address is configured on the
    ISP's router one or two hops upstream from your Pix. It is clearly not
    locally defined since you cannot ping it when specifying the inside
    interface. On a Pix 515 DMZ bundle the DMZ interface defaults to this
    address, but you are using the 506 which only has two interfaces. I
    agree with your assessment based on the trip times, the 1605 cannot have
    this configured either. It is most likely being used for BGP touting
    stability by the ISP. This is a common tactic to avoid route flapping in
    the BGP Internet routing tables. I suspect it is within your ISPs
    network because this traffic is usually not passed between ISPs, in my
    experience. As you suggested you could add access lists on the 1605
    outbound dropping the traffic, or you could add them on the Pix as well.
    However I would be curious to find out where the 127.0.0.1 traffic is
    actually being generated from. Dropping it via access list will stop it
    from being passed, but why is it there in the first place? Perhaps an
    internal machine's HOSTS file has been altered and this statement was
    removed, in which case the traffic would follow the default route. With
    some of the recent discussions about malicious HOSTS file entries, this
    seems like a plausible explanation. HTH.

    Ken Claussen MCSE (NT42K) CCNA CCA
    "In Theory it should work as you describe, but the difference between
    theory and reality is the truth! For this we all strive"

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Melson, Paul [mailto:PMelson@sequoianet.com]
    Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 5:18 PM
    To: firewall-wizards@honor.icsalabs.com
    Subject: [fw-wiz] Odd PIX / router behavior

    Has anyone seen anything like this before?

    pix# ping inside 127.0.0.1
            127.0.0.1 NO response received -- 1000ms
            127.0.0.1 NO response received -- 1000ms
            127.0.0.1 NO response received -- 1000ms

    The above is what I expect to get when I ping 127.0.0.1 from a PIX.

    pix# ping outside 127.0.0.1
            127.0.0.1 response received -- 20ms
            127.0.0.1 response received -- 10ms
            127.0.0.1 response received -- 10ms

    The above is *NOT* what I expected to get when pinging 127.0.0.1 from a
    PIX.

    In this case, the PIX is a 506 running 6.1(4) and its outside interface
    is connected to a Cisco 1605 (IOS version unknown) via cross-over cable.
    Despite the responses, 127.0.0.1 never appears in the PIX's ARP table.
    I was thinking the router may misconfigured:

    # ping Y.Y.Y.Y
            Y.Y.Y.Y response received -- 0ms
            Y.Y.Y.Y response received -- 0ms
            Y.Y.Y.Y response received -- 0ms

    That seems to rule out the router, since the response times are so
    different, and put the source of this traffic at least another hop or so
    away. At this point, I am at a loss for how or why this is happening.
    My next move will probably be to configure the 1605 with access-lists to
    drop reserved and special address ranges, but I'd really like to get to
    the bottom of this before I shut the door on it.

    This investigation started when a customer began seeing spoofing
    messages in their firewall logs:

    106016: Deny IP spoof from (127.0.0.1) to X.X.X.X on interface outside

    My initial reaction was that the inside host that is statically NAT-ed
    to X.X.X.X was infected with MS-Blaster
    (http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/75/335132/2003-08-21/2003-08-27/0)
    , but that's been ruled out.

    Thanks,
    PaulM

    _______________________________________________
    firewall-wizards mailing list
    firewall-wizards@honor.icsalabs.com
    http://honor.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards
    _______________________________________________
    firewall-wizards mailing list
    firewall-wizards@honor.icsalabs.com
    http://honor.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards


  • Next message: Andrea Pasquinucci: "Re: [fw-wiz] Why blocking bogons buys you nothing"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: Pix 501 and Local Network Router (No VPN Needed)
      ... If you are putting a router in between the PC's and the PIX then the inside ... interface of the PIX would have to be on a different subnet from the PC's. ... > fixup protocol dns maximum-length 512 ...
      (comp.dcom.sys.cisco)
    • Re: PIX 501 Basic Configuration
      ... :I have just been given a PIX 501 to configure and have very little ... :My configuration sounds simple, I do not want DHCP and I do not think I ... interface IP and you or your ISP must route the internal public IP subnet ... directing it to the inside router. ...
      (comp.dcom.sys.cisco)
    • PIX and WinXP
      ... I have a WinXP machine which is connected to a PIX ... firewall on its inside interface. ... and connect via VPN to the PIX, they can ping themselves (for testing, ... limited in VPN connections, so this could also be the problem. ...
      (comp.dcom.vpn)
    • PIX & XP
      ... I have a WinXP machine which is connected to a PIX ... firewall on its inside interface. ... and connect via VPN to the PIX, they can ping themselves (for testing, ... limited in VPN connections, so this could also be the problem. ...
      (comp.dcom.sys.cisco)
    • RE: Router with security features
      ... Subject: Router with security features ... Cisco makes an even cheaper and smaller pix firewall. ... Pix 520's it just does not come with more powerful hardware. ...
      (Security-Basics)