Cisco Firewall :: ASA (8.4) / Redirect Outside IP Request To Inside Host
Mar 27, 2012
Wondering if on the ASA (8.4) its possible to do something like what DNS rewrite does, but with IP requests. Scenario. Mobile phone accesses a web app inside our network fine over cellular. Once it comes inside on to wifi it still has the public IP address cached so the ASA doesn't allow its request to loop around and the app appears broken. We're considering lowering the TTL on the DNS host entry but I think we are battling phones/mobile OS's that don't have a strict adherence to name resolution standards. A lot just seem to refresh their caches every 10-15 minutes.
I have a ASA 5505 Sec Plus. I would like to allow outside hosts to our mail server and also our FTP server. So i would like to allow only SMTP, HTTP (for Outlook Web Access) and FTP.
I have Cisco ASA 5505 installed and use as default gateway. I go to Internet through the ASA5505 Here is my Problem.I can not ping from ASA prompt(ASA#) to my Laptop connected to the ASA, but i can ping the ASA inside interface from laptop i can not use ASDM and the VPN Tunnel is not working between the sie
ASA# ping 10.10.10.12 ??????????? 100% lost Laptop c C:/ping 10.10.10.1 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Here is the Topology
INTERNET .<=========================>ASA<===============================> LAPTOP
I disabled window firewall on the Laptop , but no goof result.
I have ASA 5520. I cannot ping the host(192.168.1.20) which is inside firewall from outside hosts. Inside host (192.168.1.20) is translated into (198.24.210.226) using static NAT.From outside host, I used "PING 198.24.210.226". Is it because I used dynamic PAT for inside hosts?
We are using an ASA with 8.4 in transparent mode. Connection fails when a host on inside tries to connect to a server on outside. This server uses mac-address 0100.5E00.0000 to load balance but replies with real mac-address.Firewall logs "Deny TCP".ARP inspection is disabled.
When I tried to upgrading PIX525 6.3 to 7.0 , Not able to Ping the host from the PIX 525 Inside interface which is on the same subnet, Also from the host to Inside Interface , Tried with Directly connected laptop with Cross cable and using Straight cable via switch, But the results end with fail.
I have a 5520 in production at a customer's site between an outside 802.11 network and an inside server. The server can get to outside hosts OK, and the traffic is being NATed properly, and sockets initiated by the server on the inside can pass data both ways, but I need to allow outside hosts the ability to send 'announcement' UDP packets to the inside server. I thought this might be an outside-NAT-required issue to get the traffic routed, but I need the inside server to see the actual outside host source IP in the UDP packet, so I basically set the outside host up similar to the inside host, just without the NAT table on the firewall -- it's subnet is outside the destination (inside server) subnet, and its gateway is the outside interface of the ASA, the same way the inside server is able to get to hosts outside. The firewall should just route the packet with a destination of the inside subnet once it sees that it hits a 'permit' ACL.
I have the appropriate ACL's set up, and when I do 'show access-list' I see policy hits for the 'permit' statements where the outside host is generating the announcement and it's hitting the ACL. I even duplicated the ACL into list 101 and 102, and applied 101 for inbound traffic on the outside int, and applied 102 for outbound traffic on the inside int, and I'm seeing policy hits on both permit statements outside and inside, so it looks like the traffic is being passed on to the inside interface and permitted, but the server isn't seeing the packets.
I can ping the outside interface from the outside, but cannot ping the inside interface or any inside hosts from the outside, even though I have 'permit icmp any any' enabled on the ACL on both ints. When I remove the firewall and put the outside clients on the same subnet, the server sees the packets just fine.
I set up the same scenario in my lab with an ASA 5505, with the same results. Below is the running config from the 5505 in the lab. The production firewall is running a slightly older version of ASA, so I made the configuration as basic as possible on the 5505 to match the config in the field:
I have an ASA 5505 with software version 8.2(1). It is making DHCP requests for IPSec clients that connect to the ASA. The DHCP requests packets the ASA makes have an extra '00' appended to the hostname field, and the length field is the size of the hostname + 1. The DHCP server is Microsoft Server 2003 and this causes the hostname to be registered with an unknown character which appears as []hostname. Then when server 2003 tries to update the DNS record, it fails because of the invalid character in the hostname. Is there anyway to have the ASA have the correct length for the hostname field in the DHCP packet, or a workaround that will solve this problem?
So I have a proxy server in my home that all the computers use to access the internet (XP Pro). I edited the host file on the proxy to redirect traffic for various reasons (ad blocking, etc.) But I have noticed that it doesn't seem to affect the computers that use the proxy. For example one entry in the host file could be 127.0.0.1 abc123.com so that abc123.com would loopback to the localhost. For some reason this isn't working. Is there anyway to get this to work without changing the host file on each individual computer?
I am desperate to make some kind of translation which convert an outside IP Address of our web server to its inside ip address so that requests can be routed internally to the server.
This is what we have: A wireless network with an SSID to serve visitors. We also have an in-house web server which can be accessed internally and externally. We have a ASA 5520 that protects the internal network, including the Web server, and also routes all traffic from the all visitors connected to the public SSID to the outside. The DHCP server for the wireless network for visitors is configured to give the 8.8.8.8 as dns server. The problem with that is that the www.ourwebserver.com is resolved by Google's dns server to the public IP Address of our web server! The traffic then is sent to the outside interface of the ASA 5520. The visitor who wants to access our web server cannot connect!
How can I configure the ASA to route that traffic to our web server with the public ip address to the inside ip address of the web server?
configure my Cisco ASA5510 (asa version 8.3.1) so that one of the host (e.g.192.168.8.20) behind management interface can ping to the other host (e.g. 192.168.2.246) behind OUTSIDEinterface. I tried modifying the ACLs, NATs and ICMP statement, but still failed[CODE]
I am having problems accessing our internal network via VPN. We have an ASA at the perimeter that connects to a 3745 router and all of our networks come of that router. I can establish a VPN connection to the ASA but I can’t ping any of our internal host.
The internal network I need to access is 172.18.0.0. When I connect to the ASA I get a dhcp address from a pool created in the ASA, the pool is 172.200.1.x. I can’t ping from the ASA to the connected vpn host and I can’t ping from the host to the ASA ip address or to 3745 connected to it.
route inside 172.18.0.0 255.255.0.0 172.18.255.1 1 Route on the 3745 back to the ASA ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 172.18.255.2 I can’t see anything on the internal network, I can’t even ping the dns servers and so on.
I have a PIX 515 that i need to use as an ip redirector.For example if users try to access 80.80.80.80 ,they need to be redirected to 90.90.90.90 show ver,
Hardware: PIX-515E, 128 MB RAM, CPU Pentium II 433 MHz Flash E28F128J3 @ 0xfff00000, 16MB BIOS Flash AM29F400B @ 0xfffd8000, 32KB 0: Ext: Ethernet0 : address is 000b.5fad.0c99, irq 10 1: Ext: Ethernet1 : address is 000b.5fad.0c9a, irq 11
I want to make it so if a user tries to use a different DNS server the request will be redirected to the one they should be using.I thought this might work but the ASA doesn't do PB routing
ip access-list extended transparent_dns permit udp any any eq 53 route-map redirect_dns permit 10 match ip address transparent_dns set ip next-hop ip.of.your.server route-map redirect_dns permit 20
[code]....
The DNS server is windows 2003?Would policy based NAT or WCCP work for this? If so how would I go about it?
I'm having problem getting ICMP echo monitoring on outside interface to work. I've set: icmp permit host monitoring_station_adress outside but I still get:
%ASA-3-313001: Denied ICMP type=8, code=0 from monitoring_station_adress on interface outside. I'm trying to directly monitor ip on ASAs interface outside.
I have access-group tied to "in" direction on interface outside. Do I still have to put "permit icmp" rules despite the fact that icmp permit outside command is set?
it is working fine for the above command if there is more than one public ip, in case 1.1.1.1 is for firewall interface public ip?if i have only one public ip and i would like to forward http traffic to my internal network? how can i use command to do that?
Windows IIS server configured behind a Cisco ASA 5540 listening on port 443 currently. Access-list and static translation configured. I have been ask to redirect all port 80 calls to port 443 for this web site only at the firewall. I have suggested moving it behind our content switch with negative results. Can we do this at the firewall level? how to accomplish the redirect for a single site. 8.2.4 is current code
On the inside interface and network, we have a server at, (as an example) 192.168.87.1, which acts as an email server.
The outside ip address of the ASA is, say, 200.0.0.1.
The ASA directs any imap requests from the outside interface to 192.168.87.1, which works fine from the outside. Users simply open up email, and collect emails etc.
When they come inside the office, their machine of course attempts to contact the ip address 200.0.0.1. the ASA knows it is outside interface, so they are unable to collect emails.
that any internal IMAP requests from machines on the inside to 200.0.0.1 are directed to the machine inside on 192.168.87.1?
i would like to use ISP2 for all http/https/ftp traffic.how could I force my ASA to set a different gateway for http/https/ftp traffic ?i have tried several solutions such as nat/pat rules, nothing seems to work.
I have the need to do an outbound NAT redirection. So what I mean is this. I have a custom program that uses SSH to port 22 from a server inside the ASA firewall. This goes out to a server on the Internet over port 22. The ISP of the SSH server told me that they changed their SSH port from 22 to 2102. So instead of changing the custom code on the developed application on the server... I thought it would be easier to do a OUTBOUND NAT redirection for the ASA to see port 22 from the server and redirect it OUTBOUND to port 2102.
so for example:
The server is at 192.168.0.2 and it uses a program to initiate SSH traffic to 205.246.1.1. The server sends to port 22 but I need it automatically changed on the firewall to port 2201 at 205.246.1.1.
It is a Cisco ASA 5510. The server at 192.168.0.2 does have a fixed IP address on the outside with INBOUND NAT for things like port 25 (mail) traffic etc. Lets pretend that was at 64.18.23.60.
At this moment (firmware 1.0.3.5) the router has no IPv6 firewall and therefore when used in a typical dual stack IPv4/IPv6 network it has no protection regarding IPv6 traffic. Hopefully this will be fixed with a firmware update before the World IPv6 Day on the 6th of June 2012.
I need to redirect all http and https traffic from one source in a dmz network, to port tcp/8080 on a proxy server on the inside network.
The source device doesn't handle proxying very well, so i've been advised to redirect the tcp/80 and tcp/443 ports to tcp/8080 as it passes through the firewall.
I have 2 ASA 5510 firewalls at 2 different sites. Both running on version 8.0.4. Users are using an Instant Messaging type of application provided by a local telco here which is able to send and receive SMS using SIP (from the packet capture that I've done).
When users use the IM in site A, they are able to send and receive text messages via the IM from behind the firewall. However, when the users are in site B, users are able to send out text messages but not able to receive them.
I noticed that when I remove "inspect sip" from site-B's global policy map, users from site-B can successfully receive text messages. I have confirmed that it is the firewall that drops the packets as I have captured the inside and outside interfaces of site-B's ASA and I can see the incoming sip "request: MESSAGE" packet on the outside interface but I do not see the packet exiting the inside interface.
I have cross check both firewall configurations, and I do not see anything suspicious commands relating to sip that might cause this issue. Is there any command to troubleshoot why the sip inspection is dropping the sip packets on site-B?
Right now, in my network there is no proxy server and all users go straight through the ASA to access internet. I would like to put a squid with dansguardian (for web filtering). Steps in getting all http and https traffic from ASA go via my squid?
I am using ASA5510 and i want to know if it is possible to redirect http traffic to an internal proxy software. I explain : PC from the LAN use a internal proxy in their IE browser but some other PC doesn't use it.They are directy connected to the Internet using the Public IP from the WAN interface ( via NAT). Can we redirected this HTTP Traffic from the WAN interface to the Proxy in the LAN ?
Http Traffic will be routed like that : PC -> WAN interface -> Proxy -> WAN interface -> Internet In fact,can we create a rule saying : All http traffic which doesn"t come from the IP Proxy must be redirected toward proxy.
I am able to ping from Switch to firewall inside ip and user desktop ip but unable to ping from user desktop to FW Inside ip.. config is below for both switch and FW Cisco ASA5510....
TechCore-SW#ping 172.22.15.10 Type escape sequence to abort. Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 172.22.15.10, timeout is 2 seconds:
I have a Cisco ASA 5505 in our office. We are currently using Interface 0 for outside and 1 for inside. We only have 1 Vlan in our environment. We have two three switches behind the firewall. Today the uplink to Interface 1, to the firewall, on the switch went bad. I want to setup a second inside interface on the firewall and configure it as failover incase this happens again. I want to attach it to the other switch. Can I do this? If so, what do I need to do? would it only be a passive/standby interface?
I've recently upgraded my old firewall from a PIX to an ASA5505 and have been trying to match up the configuration settings to no avail. I have is that I can't ping the new firewall on it's inside interface, despite having "icmp permit any inside" in the running config. Secondly, the server I have on there ("Sar") can't connect out to the internet.I've included the ASA's running config incase anybody can see if something stands out. I have a feeling it's either not letting anything onto the inside interface, or there is no nat going on. Lastly (and possibly relevant), the firewall is actually going at the end of a vlan, which is different to the firewall's inside vlan number. I don't know if this is actually the problem because the server can't connect out even if connected directly into the firewall.
I am trying to configure our ASA 5505 so that our users can access our ftp site using [URL] while inside the firewall. Our ftp site is setup so that you can reach it by either browsing to the above url or by browsing to ftp://99.23.119.78 but we are unable to access our ftp site from either route while inside the firewall. We can access our ftp site using the internal ip address of 192.168.1.3.
Here is our current confguration:
Result of the command: "show running-config" : Saved:ASA Version 8.2(1) !hostname ciscoasaenable password qVQaNBP31RadYDLM encryptedpasswd 2KFQnbNIdI.2KYOU encryptednames!interface Vlan1nameif insidesecurity-level 100ip address 192.168.1.1 255.255.255.0 !interface Vlan2nameif ATTsecurity-level 0pppoe client vpdn group ATTip address pppoe setroute !interface Ethernet0/0switchport access vlan 2!interface Ethernet0/1!interface Ethernet0/2!interface Ethernet0/3!interface Ethernet0/4!interface Ethernet0/5!interface Ethernet0/6!interface Ethernet0/7!ftp mode passiveobject-group service DM_INLINE_TCP_1 tcpport-object eq ftpport-object eq ftp-dataport-object eq wwwaccess-list ATT_access_in extended permit tcp any host 99.23.119.78 object-group DM_INLINE_TCP_1 access-list ATT_access_in extended permit tcp any interface ATT eq ftp access-list ATT_access_in extended permit tcp any interface ATT eq ftp-data access-list ATT_access_in extended permit tcp any interface ATT eq www access-list 100 extended permit tcp any interface ATT eq ftp
I'm about fed up with with having this issue that no one can seem to solve. It dates back to when I owned a WRT54G router. I started experiencing random disconnects with the router, both wired and wireless. I only owned the router a year and figured it was going bad.
So I purchased this WRT120N router late August. Soon after I set the router up, low and behold the same problem started. I've called my ISP a couple occasions and they tell me that everything is fine from their end. I've spoken with Linksys tech support on 3 seperate occasions. I have changed the MTU to 3 different values and upgraded the firmware. The 2nd support tech suggested that I do those two things. To my surprise this worked for 2 or 3 weeks with no problem. The same problem started again just last night disconnecting intermittingly. I spoke with another support tech and they suggested that disable the SPI Firewall protection and Anonymous internet request. That did not work for the brief time I had this disabled.
More into the problem, when it disconnects the modem seems fine but the activity light on it stops as it should. The router itself appears to reboot, then when it comes back up the connection restores. What could possibly cause this? I currently have version 1.0.02.This is getting very frustrating and I am getting very near not using Linksys/Cisco products any longer.
