IOS Firewall between network internal

Similar Questions

• Multi-tenant IOS Firewall and security even subinterfaces 9.0

  Hi all

  I'm so used to< 8.3="" and="" am="" having="" great="" difficulty="" getting="" an="" environment="" working="" properly="" so="" i'm="" now="" going="" to="" leverage="" the="" cisco="">

  We set up a network with clients behind a pair of 5510 s.  All of these clients will have their own dedicated sous-interface in their own VLAN.  Out the door, I got inter - allowed security-same interface and all networks communicate with each other.  I certainly don't want that, so I have disabled this command and now each network client is unable to communicate with each other, as expected.

  The problem now lies in networks where a customer have 2 VLANS separated (say a staging and a prod environment) where they need to communicate.  Is it feasible if they are of the same security level and even security allowed inter-interface is disabled?  I just need to create an ACL for the networks to talk?  Is there a better way to do this with the same security allowed active inter-interface?

  8.3 pre, I have same security allowed active inter-interface, but traffic could not speak to the other interface unless I created an exemption NAT and ACLs.  Always create a NAT exemption?

  Hello

  The basic problem that you run with different software levels is the parameter 'nat-control' that exists in 8.2 (or earlier version), but does not exist in version 8.3 (or subsequent version of the Software ASA).

  In the 8.2 and pre software you got with the nat configuration change 'control' of requiring a connection to have a NAT configuration to be able to pass traffic through the ASA. Of course this coupled with the 'security level' gave you more changes to control traffic without resorting to the ACL.

  However, in the new software of 8.3 and later the "nat-control" level no longer exists and that a connection has a NAT configuration that be applied or not ASA still allows the connection (subject other ASA controls allow) so basically you won't need NAT configurations between your local interface. The most common NAT configurations should be between your local interface and the "external" ASA interface.

  If you try to control traffic between interfaces with the global configuration commands you mention, you will eventually be 'juggling' with the 'security level' configurations autour constantly so that the correct rules for traffic is applied.

  This question came up on these forums every now and then, and I almost always offer the same approach which is to set up an ACL on EACH interface of the ASA.

  • Remember to leave the 'same-security-traffic"on the SAA configurations. It is because even if you have interface ACL allowing traffic, if they are for some reason any left with identical "security level"custom ACL be sufficient to allow the traffic. "
  • Configure each interface an ACL
  • Initially to configure the ACL to create a "object-group" that will contain EACH network behind your local interface of firewall (except the "outside" ofcourse)
  • Use this category 'object' at THE start of ACL interface to BLOCK ALL traffic behind this interface to these networks
  • After that allow or block different/Out Internet - linked as usual traffic
  • In the same networks 2 (or more) behind the need of different interfaces to communicate with each other, set up a statement that allows early each ACL. The already existing 'decline' exposed with the 'object' group already will ensure that other traffic between networks are blocked

  A very simple example, you might want to consider the following

  Networks:

  • LAN1: 10.10.10.0/24
  • LAN2: 10.10.20.0/24
  • DMZ1: 192.168.100.0/24
  • DMZ2: 192.168.200.0/24

  permit same-security-traffic inter-interface

  Interface GigabitEthernet0/0

  Description box

  interface GigabitEthernet0/0.10

  VLAN 10

  nameif LAN1

  security-level 100

  IP 10.10.10.1 255.255.255.0

  interface GigabitEthernet0/0.20

  VLAN 20

  nameif LAN2

  security-level 100

  IP 10.10.20.1 255.255.255.0

  interface GigabitEthernet0/0.100

  VLAN 100

  nameif DMZ1

  security-level 100

  IP 192.168.100.1 address 255.255.255.0

  interface GigabitEthernet0/0,200

  VLAN 200

  nameif DMZ2

  security-level 100

  192.168.200.1 IP address 255.255.255.0

  object-group network BLOCK-LOCAL-NETWORKS

  object-network 10.10.10.0 255.255.255.0

  object-network 10.10.20.0 255.255.255.0

  object-network 192.168.10.0 255.255.255.0

  object-network 192.168.20.0 255.255.255.0

  access-list LAN1 - IN note allow HTTP / HTTPS in the DMZ1 Server

  access-list LAN1 - permit tcp 10.10.10.0 255.255.0 host 192.168.100.100 eq www

  access-list LAN1 - permit tcp 10.10.10.0 255.255.0 host 192.168.100.100 eq https

  LAN1-IN access-list note block traffic to another local network

  access-list LAN1 - deny ip any object-group NETWORK-LOCAL-BLOCK

  Note LAN1-IN access list allows any outbound

  access-list IN LAN1 ip 10.10.10.0 allow 255.255.255.0 any

  LAN1-IN group access to the LAN1 interface

  And of course all other ACL would follow the same model in one form or another. You would really have to worry about traffic is allowed between interfaces, but rather the most work would probably add "allowed" in the upper part of each ACL when required for communication inter-interface. But I guess that the amount of these additions would remain also to a manageable level for FW admins.

  Naturally in environments the biggest you would probably get a high-end ASA and virtualize it and separate each customer environment in their own security context where you would avoid this situation together. Naturally the biggest points against this solution usually can be fresh and the fact that virtualize the ASA multiple context mode disables some essential operational capability of the SAA, which the most important is probably the Client VPN connections (VPN L2L is supported in the software in multiple context Mode 9.x)

  Hope this helps

  Don't forget to mark the reply as the answer if it answered your question. And/or useful response rates

  Request more if needed

  -Jouni

• Deployment IOS firewall feature set

  Hi all

  We strive to deploy the 2811 router firewalls with version 2.5 of SDM. We chose basic firewall configuration option. It has forced us to choose the approved and unapproved interfaces and we did the same. She said entering the trust interface access list and inspect the ip on the interface of the United Nations-trusetd command.

  Also, initially, we want to allow all traffic not reliable interface for the trust interface, so we manually ban ip allowed everything inside the network block? - is - right?

  We have another question, we would be having another interface on the router to connect to a different network and preference is not to configure this interface as approved or not approved, in this scenario, if all traffic from undefined interface can access the interface of confidence or also not approved interface?

  Any help would be really appreciated

  Thank you

  Concerning

  Anantha Subramanian Natarajan

  Hello André,

  "In addition, initially we want to allow all traffic to untrusted interface" which would completely break the idea of the deployment of the IOS Firewall. Nature of the statefull firewall that comes with the firewall option IOS is to block all traffic from an untrusted by default interface, then only allow the return circulation of connections, initiated from a reliable interface (inspection). And you can also allow a portion of the traffic you trust manually.

  "We have another question, we would be having another interface on the router to connect to a different network and preferably does not configure this interface as approved or not approved, in this scenario, if all traffic from undefined interface will be able to access the interface of confidence or also not approved interface?

  If the inspection rule is applied in the direction of untrusted interface oubound, do not hesitate to unplugged other interfaces as being approved.

  Concerning

• IPSec woes - problems after the installation of firewall between IPSec endpoints

  Hi all

  I recently had to install some pix from our internet router to some internal routers in a branch. A small preview:

  router Internet <-->PIX pair FO <-NAT->routers <-->Switch Fabric

  Basically, internal routers used to have interfaces with IPs turned to the audience of our external block. I had 2 tunnels GRE IPSec running on one of them and had users who log in to the House through 1721 s. Since we have very little space, I had public address the PIX redirect internal routers and go from there.

  So, here's where I am--my tunnels show top/towards the top, but I can't talk about anything that either internally sent by routers. All this worked * prior * me having to redirect internal routers to get the firewall in. I'll post all three configs (firewall, router, router internal) to cleaned formats such as text attachments. Note, also, that I left the pix traffic large shipping open until I can solve this problem. I'll reapply my more restrictive ACL when this is fixed.

  Just as a point of reference:

  200.200.200.200 - static IP router (by ISP)

  100.100.100.100 - public ip address who * was * on our external interface of our internal router, which is now on the pix as a static to the new ip address of the router.

  172.18.201.0/24--Le internal network, I created to re - treat routers to be originally the inside interface of the pix

  Example of House is the remote router of 1721, the Interior router example is the internal router and firewall example is our pix 525 just installed.

  I would like to know if there is more I should include...

  Thanks in advance!

  -Tim

  The statement of the route on the pix will require the subnet mask:

  Route inside 100.100.100.100 255.255.255.255 172.18.201.4

  After you change the static method, remember to do a clear xlate on the pix: clear xlate local 172.18.201.4

  You don't need to assign the card encryption at int of closure. If you do, these are in global configuration on the router mode:

  card crypto mapname-address loobackx, where x is the number of loopback, and mapname is the name of your crypto card (homevpn, I think it was). If the local address is not the right option, simply enter the card encryption? to invite the global configuration and you should see text referring to the allocation of an IP as source for traffic using ipsec.

  Notes:

  1. on the router tunnel interface will use the same loopback interface as its source too. With the card encryption applied to the actual physical interface routing if you do not have to create maps of route to route to the closure to apply ipsec processing.

  This should take care of the GRE and IPSec traffic. Is there any other traffic should I consider?

  Take care to archive the current configs on the internal router and pix before you make these changes to restore more easily to the case where things go wrong.

• IOS Firewall

  Hello

  What devices can I find ios firewall services, ZBF and url filtering? is it only the routers or there are PIX too?

  Thank you

  PIX and ASA devices support ZBF, URL filtering and firewall services. However almost all high mid-range to routers have firewall/ios function (Cisco3640 router with firewall IOS version 12.2 media services), SRI series routers support ZBF and URL filtering.

• 1721 router + 4esw, WIC + IOS firewall

  Hello

  I have a router (192.168.157.254) Cisco 1721 with a 4port10/100 wic installed.

  Is it possible to filter using IOS Firewall if wic address and lan are similar? I know it's that they have different ip addresses is possible, but if they are in the same LAN?

  For example:

  A server (192.168.157.10) connected directly to the router FILTER wic and using the LAN interface.

  Is possible?

  Best regards

  Yes, the IOS Firewall can filter even if the address LAN and wic are similar. The following link can help you

  http://www.Cisco.com/en/us/docs/iOS/12_4/secure/configuration/guide/schfirwl.html

• Routing between networks in a configuration of quartering of its assets-

  Hi all

  This old chestnut again...

  I've recently upgraded to LM 3 to (mostly) take advantage of the built-in network features that have been proposed.

  However, I am still struggling with this: http://communities.vmware.com/message/946079#946079

  I have experimented with it in the new version just a little, but can not find a way to put several networks (physical or virtual) in a ring-fenced and then totally blocked configuration routing between them (WITHOUT using a virtual, multi-homed routing device). Things are certainly much easier, being able to manage all interfaces through the console of LM is much simpler, but the response to the post linked above suggests that I would be able to deliver in a transparent manner... (at the time, I thought the questioned was an employee of VMWare, but I could be wrong)?

  Thanks in advance.

  Your struggle is partially valid.  Lab Manager 3 manages several networks, but it will not address the routing between networks by itself.  You have two options:

  (1) do what you do - creating multihomed VMs to route between networks.  Now, you won't have to use VC to all do this.  Capture library and fenced deployment now works without manual effort on the side.

  (2) create multiple physical networks, road between them using hardware network and technical deployment on them.  "Block the entrance and exit" would be enforced by the deployment on the production completely independent physical networks.

  Steven

• ASA 5505 site to site VPN between A to site B, then B site MPLS network internal

  Hi all

  I'll put up the VPN site to site between two site A to site B.  Two local site of A and B are connected correctly.  However for my site B have an other intern MPLS to another site.  The thin connection of LAN has completely to the LAN B MPLS router, but cannot connect to other site MPLS.  If I did the SPLM traceroute on another site.  Access internal router LAN B.  Therefore, I'm confused what part of my setup to trick you and any document for my reference.  Thank you very much.

  Local area NETWORK a (ASA 5505)---(ASA 5505) Local LAN B - router internal B - B router MPLS - another site.

  >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

  Hello, Alan

  After having crossed the configuration that I realized that the problem was with the main campus network was not in the list of nat step in the direction of the ASA. After you have added that, everthing works

  Thank you

  Please note the useful messages!

  Harish

• Firewall between ESX and vCenter vLAN &amp; Production vLAN

  Hello

  Scenario:

  2 ESX hosts with Teddy bear 6. 2 to vLAN S.C. & VMotion, 2 to vLAN DMZ and 2 for the Production of vLAN.

  There are 2 pSwitches to battery-Mode Cluster, having 4 VLANS.

  1. Production of vLAN1

  2. vLAN2 DMZ

  3. Service vLAN3 console

  4. vLAN4 VMotion

  Connectivity is fine no problem. All VLAN works them very well. Service console and VMotion they fold each other so pSwitch failure failure or Teddy bear.

  Requirements:

  Service console is connected in vLAN3 which is 172.16.20.0/24 network under vSwitch0 contains 2pNICs & 3 exchanges.  Service Console PortGroup, VMotion PortGroup & vCenter PortGroup. vCenter PortGroup I want to place the VirtualCenter VM & I'll put the virtual computer's firewall.

  Currently, the Center Virtual under vCenter PortGroup, which is 172.16.20.55. Communication to ESX all very well.

  How I connect to VirtualCenter & ESX host while I am putting in the Production vLAN? I added a static Route in my P.C. 172.16.20.0 to go via 128.104.145.149 "this is the IP address pSwitch" I connect very well without any problems. Of course that does not protect the farm ESX and virtual Center.

  I want to secure the connection between the Production vLAN & Console of service of VMotion vLAN & get rid of the Static Route in the computers in the Admin.

  Bypass the Options:

  1. Physics MS ISA Server with 2 natachasery one be connected in the vCenter PortGroup & to be connected in the Production vLAN & open ports to demand it.

  2. Physical firewall of Teddy 2 a be connected in the vCenter PortGroup & to be connected in the Production vLAN and open ports require.

  3. Virtual Firewall 'SmoothWall or ISA Server' with 2 teddy bears that are connected in the vCenter PortGroup & to be connected in the Production vLAN and open ports require.

  Please take a look at the diagram attached & tips.

  Best regards

  Hussain Al Sayed

  Hello

  On your diagram, I would change your colors. Orange traditionally involves a DMZ not green, but it is up to you. I use Smoothwall for exactly the same behavior.

  Network <-> pNIC1 <-> vSwitch1 <-> vFW (smoothwall) <-> DMZ Network
  ....................................................<-> Green Network
  

  If your front firewall controls access to everything. You can use 'two' firewalls so if you just want to have a set of Red<->Green Networks. On the first, the Red network is outside, green is the demilitarized zone, in the second, red is the demilitarized zone and the ESX hosts are green.

  To grant access to your ESX hosts from a system outside the firewall, you must enable and redirect port 443 to the appropriate location. In fact, I wouldn't do that, create a virtual machine or physical box that is inside the firewall, use the VPN and OpenVPN Tarek Smoothwall addon in the internal location or create a pinhole that allows RDP access to this host/VM and then use the VIC of in the "green network". You must put the kingpins holes in your firewall to grant access you need, so a VPN works much better. You want to limit the number of holes of PIN you use.

  What you describe is quite feasible, but without the holes of the kingpins and proper routing through the firewall is not possible.

  Best regards

  Edward L. Haletky

  VMware communities user moderator

  ====

  Author of the book "VMWare ESX Server in the enterprise: planning and securing virtualization servers, Copyright 2008 Pearson Education.»

  Blue gears and SearchVMware Pro Articles: http://www.astroarch.com/wiki/index.php/Blog_Roll

  Security Virtualization top of page links: http://www.astroarch.com/wiki/index.php/Top_Virtualization_Security_Links

• danger of the use of the Internet Routable IP space on network internal

  Hello

  We have a 16 IPv4 space which is recorded for us. For years we used these network on our internal network. We have layers of security separating the internal networks of the internet.

  Recently I was asked about best practices and security using the internet routable IP on my internal network. Can someone explain to me what threat posed by really?

  Thank you

  Dan

  Hi Dan,.

  One of the fundamental principles of the internet was to provide end-to-end connectivity. NAT killed this idea but with IPv6, we have 'enough' address space public to make it workable again.

  If you want security uses a firewall/ids/ips. Private addressing is not safer, anyone who tells you otherwise must have his head in the sand! :) Of course private address protects you from the outside
  recognition, but once one of these servers on private address that you have exposed to the internet through port forwarding or NLBs is compromised then the false confidence in security RFC1918 is eroded, as an attacker can start hopping around your internal network... and regarding your users emails offering £££ of unclaimed funds Bank Nigerian and hovering content compromise opening flash...

  Protect your network from the internet, your servers to your users and your servers to your servers!

  The University where I work also has a 16, and although we now go to addressing more private because we have exhausted our share (!) and moving private allowing for aggregation of the good path and one model simple address.

  see you soon,

  SEB.

• VCS Expressway Network internal

  I have a client who wants to deploy the VCSE on the internal network with a VCS. The VCSE has the opportunity to double network. Customer has forged for the VLAN VCSE/VCSC separated. And LAN2 NAT VCSE on the firewall. All CARDS will finish the same L3 switch. Is question solution feasible?

  EMM,

  That should be fine, don't forget that if they only use a port on the VCS-E and NAT to one then the VCS - C pointing to the public IP address of the VCS-E, which means that you need to activate the grouping on the firewall. Then the VLAN to which is connected the VCS - C should be able to get out to the firewall to get to the public IP address of the VCS-E.

  If you decide to use two ports on the VCS-E you VLAN (3). The VCS - C would point to the internal VLAN VCS-e.

  Justin

  Sent by Cisco Support technique iPad App

• T440 - Sound does not switch between the internal speakers and headphones listening or return

  Hello community,

  Let me first explain how I assumed that the switch between headset and speakers should work:
  I turn on the music or anything else and if no headphones are connected, all sound from the internal speakers. Now if I plug headphones then sound comes exclusively from the helmet. If I go out then again the sound comes from the speakers and so on.

  In my case, the situation is the following:
  If I have no headset connected and turn on the music, then I heard if via the speakers. If I decide to continue to listen to this music through a headphone and plug them in, then the music continues to come from the speakers, but for example, the outlook notification sound is delivered in the headphones. It works vice versa.
  If I open, say youtube for a video, while having the headphone is plugged, I hear the sound through them. If I now unplugg, them, the speakers will remain silent.

  What can I do that if there is no external speakers connected (helmet, etc.) all sound will be played through the internal speakers, if I plug in a kind of external speaker, it's their part and if I unplugg it it switches back on the internal speakers?

  Thank you very much for your help!

  Best regards

  Look in Control Panel audio Realtek. It should be an option multistreaming, make sure it is set to unify all devices.

• Vista firewall and network settings

  Greetings,

  Running Vista Ultimate OS and for the McAfee Security Center security system, providing the Dell system.  Security Center is a brand product (McAfee) Dell.  It includes a firewall.  It is generally not recommended to run two firewalls at the same time on the same system.  In this case, my preference is to disable the Windows Vista firewall and manage only the McAfee Security Center Firewall.

  However, by doing so, effects of undesirable changes in the Windows Vista network configuration.  Specifically, disable the Vista Firewall automatically turns on the discovery network and file sharing in the network settings of Vista, which is not desired.

  The question:

  What is the solution to run Windows Vista with the firewall (Vista) integrated offshore, the McAfee Security Center Firewall and discovery network and settings (network) off the coast of file sharing?

  By the way, my troubleshooting on this has included disable McAfee Firewall to determine if she could be causing a conflict with the firewall and Windows network settings.  Apparently not, because even with McAfee firewall off it is still not possible to disable the Windows Firewall (in this case, No firewall is running) without network discovery and sharing settings being switched automatically on files.

  Again, the goal is to run the McAfee Firewall with the network discovery and parameters (network) off the coast of file sharing and Windows Vista firewall off the coast.

  Thank you-

  Network discovery is enabled or disabled in vista network and sharing Center by activating or deactivating vista firewall rules. You can maybe re-create these rules in the McAfee Firewall, although they will be not be enabled / disabled from the network sharing Center. The following site will show how to display vista firewall rules:
  http://NPR.Freei.me
  Are you sure there is no setting in McAfee to block the sharing of files and network discovery?

  Note: the rules for sharing printers and files, and network discovery are clearly identified in the vista firewall.

• Windows Firewall: "Public network" - what is it?

  

  The cropped image is from a screenshot of "Control Panel" > "Windows Firewall".

  Watch 'Public networks' above. It says not 'connected '. Huh? I can browse the Internet, while 'public network' means for Microsoft?

  1, I seek to understand the firewall rules.
  2, I guess the 'unidentified network' is the VirtualBox Host-Only connection to my Linux VM.

  3, 'this' on the side of my router is my LAN. I guess that's what Microsoft means by 'private network '.

  4, the other side of my router is the Internet.

  5, when I initiate a connection, my computer sends a packet to my router (via my ' private network'? How else, huh?). My router it then goes to the Internet (a ' public network'? If the Internet is not a public network, what is?)

  If all this happens normally whereas my "public network" is "not connected", then what is my 'public network '?

  Thank you.

  Hello Mark,

  Thank you for visiting Microsoft Community.

  You can see the following articles from Microsoft to understand about Windows Firewall rules and firewall for different network profiles.

  Understanding Firewall profiles

  https://TechNet.Microsoft.com/en-us/library/getting-started-WFAS-firewall-profiles-IPSec (v = ws.10) .aspx

  Understanding Windows Firewall for different network profiles

  https://TechNet.Microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/ee851569.aspx

  End-to-end Windows Firewall

  http://Windows.Microsoft.com/en-us/Windows-8/Windows-Firewall-from-start-to-finish

  Hope this information is useful. Please write us back for any further assistance with Windows, we will be happy to help you.

• Tunnel GRE / IP Sec VPN firewall between the router Cisco and Fortigate

  Hello

  Can I do GRE Tunnel / VPN IP Sec between Cisco router and Fortigate Firewall?

  Thank you

  Hi zine,.

  As long as the Fortigate device support GRE over IPSEC, you will be able to create the tunnel between these 2 devices.

  Here is the config for the Cisco Site:

  https://supportforums.Cisco.com/document/16066/how-configure-GRE-over-IPSec-tunnel-routers

  Happy holidays!

  -Randy-