Re: [patch] Re: hacking pfkey: a few questions

2010-04-15 Thread Toni Mueller
On Wed, 14.04.2010 at 16:14:32 +0200, Markus Friedl wrote: > yes, just writing an appropriate isakmpd.policy file should work:: > > Authorizer: "POLICY" > Conditions: app_domain == "IPsec policy" && > ( remote_filter != "000.000.000.000-255.255.255.255" ) -> "true"; I had configured this

Re: [patch] Re: hacking pfkey: a few questions

2010-04-14 Thread Markus Friedl
yes, just writing an appropriate isakmpd.policy file should work:: Authorizer: "POLICY" Conditions: app_domain == "IPsec policy" && ( remote_filter != "000.000.000.000-255.255.255.255" ) -> "true"; On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 12:10:27PM +1000, Damien Miller wrote: > On Mon, 12 Apr 2010, Toni

isakmpd & policy, was: Re: [patch] Re: hacking pfkey: a few questions

2010-04-13 Thread Toni Mueller
Hi, [ still appropriate for tech@ ? ] [ Cc: list clipped - we are all on tech@, anyway, aren't we? ] On Tue, 13.04.2010 at 11:10:00 +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote: > flow esp in from 0.0.0.0/0 to somenetwork/24 type bypass > flow esp out from somenetwork/24 to 0.0.0.0/0 type bypass > flow esp in

Re: [patch] Re: hacking pfkey: a few questions

2010-04-13 Thread Stuart Henderson
On 2010/04/13 10:24, Toni Mueller wrote: > Working: > > > flow esp in from 172.18.100.139 to 0.0.0.0/0 peer 87.186.99.179 srcid > gatewayip/32 dstid uf...@example.com type use > flow esp out from 0.0.0.0/0 to 172.18.100.139 peer 87.186.99.179 srcid > gatewayip/32 dstid uf...@example.com

Re: [patch] Re: hacking pfkey: a few questions

2010-04-13 Thread Toni Mueller
Hi Damien, On Tue, 13.04.2010 at 12:10:27 +1000, Damien Miller wrote: > On Mon, 12 Apr 2010, Toni Mueller wrote: > > with your comments, I have produceds a second version of the patch, > > which includes the following changes: > > IPsec isn't really my area, but some questions: > > 1) Why are t

Re: [patch] Re: hacking pfkey: a few questions

2010-04-12 Thread Damien Miller
On Mon, 12 Apr 2010, Toni Mueller wrote: > Hi, > > with your comments, I have produceds a second version of the patch, > which includes the following changes: IPsec isn't really my area, but some questions: 1) Why are these flows "illegal"? 0/0 -> 0/0 seems like it might have a use as a shortha

Re: [patch] Re: hacking pfkey: a few questions

2010-04-12 Thread Toni Mueller
Hi, On Mon, 12.04.2010 at 09:37:18 +0200, Toni Mueller wrote: > On Mon, 12.04.2010 at 06:54:31 +0200, Bret S. Lambert > wrote: > > $ man 9 inet_ntoa > > man: no entry for inet_ntoa in section 9 of the manual. > > Patrick is right, though. I have to retract this statement after seeing that in

Re: [patch] Re: hacking pfkey: a few questions

2010-04-12 Thread Toni Mueller
Hi, with your comments, I have produceds a second version of the patch, which includes the following changes: On Sun, 11.04.2010 at 20:47:38 +0200, Toni Mueller wrote: > * No IPv6 support (I have no clue). * tried to add IPv6 support * Logging is still not very useful, but at least it does no

Re: [patch] Re: hacking pfkey: a few questions

2010-04-12 Thread Toni Mueller
Hi, On Mon, 12.04.2010 at 06:54:31 +0200, Bret S. Lambert wrote: > On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 01:43:11PM -0700, patrick keshishian wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 09:40:45PM +0200, Toni Mueller wrote: > > > I already suspected something like this, but this behaviour is not > > > documented in th

Re: [patch] Re: hacking pfkey: a few questions

2010-04-11 Thread patrick keshishian
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 06:54:31AM +0200, Bret S. Lambert wrote: > On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 01:43:11PM -0700, patrick keshishian wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 09:40:45PM +0200, Toni Mueller wrote: > > > Hi Patrick, > > > > > > On Sun, 11.04.2010 at 11:58:54 -0700, patrick keshishian > > > wr

Re: [patch] Re: hacking pfkey: a few questions

2010-04-11 Thread Bret S. Lambert
On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 01:43:11PM -0700, patrick keshishian wrote: > On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 09:40:45PM +0200, Toni Mueller wrote: > > Hi Patrick, > > > > On Sun, 11.04.2010 at 11:58:54 -0700, patrick keshishian > > wrote: > > > inet_ntoa will return pointer to a static buffer. Each call > > >

Re: [patch] Re: hacking pfkey: a few questions

2010-04-11 Thread patrick keshishian
On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 09:40:45PM +0200, Toni Mueller wrote: > Hi Patrick, > > On Sun, 11.04.2010 at 11:58:54 -0700, patrick keshishian > wrote: > > inet_ntoa will return pointer to a static buffer. Each call > > TO IT Will override thsi buffer with the new IP info. > > I already suspected som

Re: [patch] Re: hacking pfkey: a few questions

2010-04-11 Thread Toni Mueller
Hi Patrick, On Sun, 11.04.2010 at 11:58:54 -0700, patrick keshishian wrote: > inet_ntoa will return pointer to a static buffer. Each call > TO IT Will override thsi buffer with the new IP info. I already suspected something like this, but this behaviour is not documented in the man page. :( I

Re: [patch] Re: hacking pfkey: a few questions

2010-04-11 Thread patrick keshishian
On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 08:47:38PM +0200, Toni Mueller wrote: > Hi, > > I've created a rough patch that should fix the immediate problem, but > is certainly far from perfect (yet). Things to note: > > * No IPv6 support (I have no clue). > * No useful error messages - I want to log data about the

[patch] Re: hacking pfkey: a few questions

2010-04-11 Thread Toni Mueller
Hi, I've created a rough patch that should fix the immediate problem, but is certainly far from perfect (yet). Things to note: * No IPv6 support (I have no clue). * No useful error messages - I want to log data about the offending site, so admins can go after them. * For some reason I don't yet