RE: [fw-wiz] Odd PIX / router behavior
From: Melson, Paul (PMelson_at_sequoianet.com)
Date: 10/31/03
- Previous message: Andrea Pasquinucci: "Re: [fw-wiz] Why blocking bogons buys you nothing"
- Maybe in reply to: Melson, Paul: "[fw-wiz] Odd PIX / router behavior"
- Next in thread: lordchariot_at_earthlink.net: "RE: [fw-wiz] Odd PIX / router behavior"
- Reply: lordchariot_at_earthlink.net: "RE: [fw-wiz] Odd PIX / router behavior"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
To: "Claussen, Ken" <Ken@kccweb.com>, <firewall-wizards@honor.icsalabs.com> Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 09:18:56 -0500
Thanks Ken. It's definitely looking that way. I wanted to rule out
that some packet with odd flags was slipping through the firewall's
state table and onto the outside network before being sent back, so I
added the following route to the PIX:
route inside 127.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 10.0.0.1
In this case, 10.0.0.1 is the inside interface of the PIX. This has the
effect of dropping any traffic from the inside that is destined for
127.0.0.0/24. The spoofing messages continued to appear in the log data
after that change, so I'm going to put an access-list on their border
router, which should knock it down. If it doesn't, you can bet I'll be
back with more questions. :-)
Thanks again,
PaulM
-----Original Message-----
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.
_______________________________________________
firewall-wizards mailing list
firewall-wizards@honor.icsalabs.com
http://honor.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards
- Previous message: Andrea Pasquinucci: "Re: [fw-wiz] Why blocking bogons buys you nothing"
- Maybe in reply to: Melson, Paul: "[fw-wiz] Odd PIX / router behavior"
- Next in thread: lordchariot_at_earthlink.net: "RE: [fw-wiz] Odd PIX / router behavior"
- Reply: lordchariot_at_earthlink.net: "RE: [fw-wiz] Odd PIX / router behavior"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
