I'm having a few problems at the moment with a zone based firewall setup. The more I looked into the problems the more I question whether I need the ZBF or not.My network is pretty simple. 1 Internet connection and 1 LAN interface and a few site to site vpns to the router.So what do people think to having this kind of set up and not using a ZBF?
View 11 RepliesWe had a problem with SMTP inspection dropping some regular emails (Cisco 2901 IOS 15.0). The original configuration.
View 2 Replies View RelatedWe had a problem with SMTP inspection dropping some regular emails (Cisco 2901 IOS 15.0).Incoming mails are going thru Spam and Virus Blocker so that bypassing SMTP inspection is not security issue in this case.
View 1 Replies View RelatedI've been trying to configured Websense urlfiltering using ZFW feature on my Cisco 881G router. The router is running on IOS 15.0(1)M with Advanced IP Services. And I have confirmed it supports urlfilter feature.
This is what I tried to accomplish but IOS version 15.0x seems to have different command set.
-----------------------
class-map type inspect httptraffic
match protocol http
parameter-map type urlfilter param
server vendor websense 10.20.30.40
[Code]...
I have two 1811's connected in a lab using a ipsec vpn tunnel (using a switch to simulate an internet connection between them).I am trying to configure one of the routers as a ZBPF just to allow a remote windows login (DC on the firewalled side, workstations on the other side).I'm trying to verify that the zbpf is working, but it doesn't seem to stop anything. I had match icmp added to the class-map, but took it out to test if icmp would fail. It didn't. Basically, I don't think the firewall is working at all. Any thoughts on how I can configure this so that the policies will work between zone-pairs?
Here's an quick drawing:
Here are the configurations:
Local router:
hostname sdc-1811-LocalLab
!
boot-start-marker
boot-end-marker
!
no aaa new-model
!
resource policy
[code]....
I am getting ready to deploy a 3945 ISR to serve as an internet and core router for and remote site. I will be terminating a site-to-site VPN tunnel on it and also configuring a zone based firewall config between my "outside" (internet link) and "inside" (all internal nets). My question is about how to approach securing the WAN interface with the Zone based FW in place?what kind of ACL do I need beyond those allowing and restricting remote access to the outside ip?
View 3 Replies View RelatedI have a cisco 1841 router , and i want to configure zone based firewall on it. But the document of zone based firewall only said that "after 12.4(6)T" can support zone based firewall. I use the ios " c1841-ipbasek9-mz.124-15.T9.bin ", but it can't support ZFW. What kind of ios support ZFW. for example: ipbase, ent base, ip service ,advent etc.
View 2 Replies View Relatedwe are experiencing performance issues on ASR 1004 with ZBF as our campus edge router.Symptoms:
- sending small packets from inside zone to outside zone, for example UDP packets without payload
- this way I can generate up to 150.000 pps traffic (testing with packeth software, but we have had a real example with some kind of worm/virus)
- CPU load is about 1% (yes one!) to 2% all time !! (weird)
- ASR response to pings rises very quickly up to 5 seconds which makes box unusable dropping everything what goes through ZBF (so internet connection is gone)
- if I do the ping directly from box, it seems to work fine (no rules from self to outside zone in ZBF)
- if I remove interfaces from inside and outside zone (so disabling ZBF) and do the test again, ASR response goes from normal (0.2ms) up to 2ms (still sending 150.000 pps) and everything seems to work fine)
According to Cisco Datasheets: routing, Qos, Zbf ... on ASR 1000 with RP1, ESP10 should be done in hardware with up to 17.000.000 pps performance.
I am looking to implement Zone-Based Firewall on some 2900 series routers (2911 and 2921.) Based on some research I've done it looks like the cisco2911-sec/k9 and cisco2921-sec/k9 bundles should be all I need. Is this correct, or is there some other licensing component that needs to be enabled for me to implement Zone-Based Firewall?
View 2 Replies View RelatedI am confiuring ZFW on a Cisco 2951 Router. The router has the following interfaces: [code]Port Channel 1, 1.5, 1.10, 1.15, 1.20 have been added to the zone called IN-OUT. All the subinterfaces correspond to an internal VLAN.The router is connected to a MPLS network and has a BGP peer on interface MPPP. Over the MPLS network, an ecrypted DMVPN tunnel to HQ has been built (tunnel 0). EIGRP is the routing protocol running over the tunnel.Traffic coming in from HQ has to be firewalled on this router (don't ask me why!!). As a result, I am configuring ZFW on this router.
1-The router itself does not need to be protected, only the servers in the remote offices. That being said, I am not planning to create any self zone on this router. I don't want to break BGP, therefore the MPPP interface will NOT belong to any zone. Is this the correct way to do it?
2-The tunnel 0 interface will belong to OUT-IN zone that will protect all incoming traffic into this site from HQ. So when writing class-maps for the traffic coming INTO this site, do I need to write any class-maps for EIGRP or ESP? My guess is no, since that traffic will not be coming into the site, but rather just terminating on the router.
I'm having an issue accessing a clients router on the WAN interface with Cisco config pro. I can get CLI access with SSH without any issue. I have port 22 and 443 allowed as management access from my public IP - SSH working fine but config pro being refused connection, Possibly a certificate issue?
View 1 Replies View Relatedwe have an ASR1002 running zone-based-firewall with 2 zones:
zone_ouside
zone_ph
I have a common ZFW-configuration on that interfaces, e.g.
<code>
class-map type inspect match-any pass_cmap_in
match access-group name pass-ipv4-in
!
class-map type inspect match-any ph_cmap_in
match access-group name ph-ipv4-in
[code]....
There is some basic stuff in the Access-Lists; direction ph-ipv4-in contains basically "permit ip any any" and ph-ipv4-out contains some permits for certain services, but nothing else. The pass-ipv4-in/out ACL contains particularly the udp-500/4500-stuff as well as gre/esp/ah.
Here are the zone-pairs:
<code>
zone-pair security zone_ph-zone_outside source zone_ph destination zone_outside
service-policy type inspect ph_pmap_in
!
zone-pair security zone_outside-zone_ph source zone_outside destination zone_ph
service-policy type inspect ph_pmap_out
!
</code>
[code]...
The xconnect is only built up correctly when I configure the interface in the zone_outside. The destination for the xconnect is an ASR9k. If I do not configure the zone on the L2VPN-Interface, only arp-packet are allowed to tgo through the tunnel.
The L2VPN connects a branch office to the network of "PH". Now the trouble starts: when they are putting a host in the branch office, DHCP via the L2VPn works fine, they can ping anything from the branch office-PC in their local network and reach all internal servers etc.
BUT if they want to go to a destination outside their network, it will not work properly. For example, the branch-office-PC can ping 8.8.8.8 fine, but when they try to connect to a website, e.g. www.google.com, they run into a timeout. Netstat says, that the http-syn is sent, but no ack is received.
On the router, I see:
Session 1178BAE8 (x.y.225.250:2370)=>(173.194.35.151:80) http SIS_OPENING
whereas x.y.225.250 is the PC connected via L2VPN in the branch office to their local lan. When they put the same machine in their local lan directly behind the router (without l2vpn) everything works fine. When I switch off the firewall on the Gi0/0/0-Interface, the PC from the branch office also reaches its destination, so for me it looks like the firewall inspects the traffic going via Gi0/0/1 and L2VPN, what in my opinion, it should not do....
We are testing a Zone Based FW config since 1month, everything run smooth but we're having problem ( big slow speed access ) when a user try to reach a website on a non-standard port ( 8080 in that case ). All the trafic stay in our LAN, using a IPSEC/EZVPN connection between the 2 sites.As soon as I have disabled the Zone Based FW, the speed was much better.
I'm sure I'm missing a parameter to fix that problem but I tried many different options and I didn't find anything yet. All the routers are Cisco 1811 running adv IP Services 15.1.2.T1 IOS.A port-map has been created to map the port 8080 to the HTTP protocol for the inspection.The PC will have an IP address in the 10.2.2.x/24 and will access a server on 10.2.3.x/24, both devices are part of the zone private in each site/LAN.All the access between sites are managed by an ASA; the IPSEC/EZVPN peer.Little summary, it's gonna be something like : SiteA with a PC on private zone then on public zone for the EZVPN to SiteB on public zone and then private zone to access the server in the LAN.
I'm trying to configure a zone-based firewall on an SR520 and am confused about the 'not' criterion. The 'zone-design-guide' says (my stress): Class- maps define the traffic that the firewall selects for policy application. Layer 4 class-maps sort the traffic based on these criteria listed here. These criteria are specified using the match.where my intention is to let only LAN hosts with IPs in the range 192.168.1.1 to 192.168.1.7 out through the firewall. There may be an easier way of doing this which I'd be pleased to hear about. But, even if there is, I'd also be interested to know what I'm doing wrong in the above.
View 0 Replies View RelatedI have set up a zone-based policy firewall with HA on two 2911 routers as per the Cisco security configuration guide, for an active/passive LAN-LAN cluster. All works as expected, but there is one problem I find: when the control link between the two devices fails, they go into an active/active state as each member assumes it's the last surviving member. The ARP entries for the Virtual IPs on the neighboring devices point to the device that last claimed the active role (usually the standby device). This works in a way, just sessions don't get synched anymore (control link is the same as data link). Now when the link comes back up, the preemtion works and the active, former standby device goes back to standby. But the ARP entries on the neighboring devices still point to the standby device and nothing goes (also sessions established during the active/active state are lost due to resync with the now active member).
This is a single point of failure and what I need is a way to mitigate that. Under:
redundancy
application redundancy
group 1
control <interface> protocol 1
only one control interface is allowed. Other manufacturers with similar functionality provide for the possibilty of a backup control link, for example the internal LAN interface or a dedicated backup link.
How would I go about that? Maybe use a port-channel for the control/data link (but I'm out of interfaces)?
The problem I am having is very strange and I have tried to upgrade the IOS on the 1841 to solve the problem but no luck. The issue is when I enable Zone Based firewall security on of the 1841 routers two VPN site-to-site tunnels stops working. If I turn off CEF (no ip cef) then the traffic for both tunnels works. Someone told me that the Zone Based firewall must have a match for the VPN traffic and I created that with ACL 160 and 161 but it did not solve the problem.
Current IOS is below.
Cisco IOS Software, 1841 Software (C1841-ADVSECURITYK9-M), Version 15.0(1)M9, RELEASE SOFTWARE (fc1)
Technical Support: [URL]
Copyright (c) 1986-2012 by Cisco Systems, Inc.
Compiled Tue 11-Sep-12 23:58 by prod_rel_team
[code]....
I have a Cisco 2901 which terminates a Class C address pool. I have split the Class C address pool into 3 sub-nets and 2 zones and created a non-addressable pool (private pool):
dmz-zone : x.x.x.0 TO x.x.x.127 (x.x.x.0/25)
in-zone: x.x.x.128 TO x.x.x.159 (x.x.x.128/27) & x.x.x.160 TO x.x.x.191 (x.x.x.160/27)
private-zone: 192.168.x.0 TO 192.168.x.255 (192.168.x.0/24)
I have configured private-zone NAT to use address pool x.x.x.161 TO x.x.x.189 within the in-zone.
Within the:
dmz-zone - are servers for : DNS, Syslog, SIP & HTTP/HTTPS in-zone - is a SMTP mail server which is behind VPN Gateway/NAT, TomCat (Application Server) and PostgreSQL Server private-zone - is where all standard users are operating from and they can access the SIP & HTTP/HTTPS servers within dmz-zone My problem is that I cannot seem to configure the ZBFW to allow the dmz-zone HTTP/HTTP server to redirect to in-zone TomCat server.
I do not want to make the TomCat server generally visible and am instead using the Apache proxy/ajp13 to connect from dmz-zone server to in-zone server.However I cannot seem to get anything (including icmp) to work from dmz-zone to in-zone.
I have Policy:
POLICY-DMZ-IN (dmz-zone to in-zone) which has:
any any udp/tcp inspect
any any icmp inspect
unmatched traffic DROP/LOG
But I still cannot get anything from dmz-zone to in-zone...Could the POLICY-DMZ-IN be being overridden by other dmz-zone to out-zone policies?
NOTE: I have routing rules for each of various sub-nets and all out-zone to dmz-zone, out-zone to in-zone and private-zone to out-zone, in-zone and dmz-zone routing works ok, so it appears problem is with ZBFW not routing table.
I have a 2800 router connecting a small office to the Internet. I am using zone-based firewall to provide protection. The small office also needs to connect to another office. The 2800 is at the small office and an ASA at HQ. I successfully established the VPN connection and have allowed Internet access for the small office. The purpose of this post is my zone-base fw policy doesn't appear to be as secure as it could be.
2800 - I have defined two zones (inside and outside). Traffic from the inside to the outside is inspected expect for the traffic to the other office. I allow traffic to the other office to "pass" zbfw. Because the traffic "passes" zbfw, I have to "pass" the same traffic for the outside to in policy. The ASA has "sysopt" to allow VPN traffic to bypass the outside_acl. Do routers and zone-based firewall have a similar feature?
I have a 3845 ISR that I have been managing for a couple years that has a traditional ACL based config. We just purchased a new 3845 for redundancy and it arrived with the zone based config from Cisco. Any opinions on whether I should take the existing router to a zone based config or should I configure the new router with traditional ACL config that I am more comforatable with?
View 1 Replies View RelatedI have a simple setup where I have a 2911 router with three interfaces, Inside, Outside and a second "Inside" interface which is labelled as a DMZ. The Zone Firewall applied to the "DMZ" is actually Inside (until I can work through problems). I need to be able to access a device on the DMZ via its external IP so I have designed NAT to use IP Nat Enable commands. This is now working for me fine. However, since utilising IP Nat Enable, my zone firewall now denies return TCP / UDP traffic and consequently I no longer have any internet access. Looking at the syslog messages, the reason for this is that the router is denying these return flows not because they are matching the outside-to-inside policy, but rather they are matching the outside-to-SELF policy. The router seems the detect that the internet traffic is being returned to SELF, when in reality the NAT rule should pick this up and forward it to inside. I can understand why this is happening, because I am NATting all private / inside traffic behind the external IP of the router, which is assigned to the Gi0/0 interface. [code]
View 1 Replies View RelatedI have a spare ASA5505 w/Base License that we want to use as the router/firewall between our wi-fi network and our secondary internet connection. Currently we have a NetGear box as the router there and it is on its last legs. In order for the ASA w/Base license to be able to issue over 150 IP address via DHCP which license do I need to purchase for it.
View 7 Replies View RelatedI will be using a cgr2010 and want to use the zone firewall option. Can i configure sub interfaces on the same main interface to be in different zones
View 1 Replies View RelatedThe firewall is running version #8.2 on ASA 5580. Address translation is not needed on Inside network and Outside network.But the customer has hundreds of static command as below.. [code] Can they all be removed and replace with one single command as below?
View 1 Replies View RelatedI Have ASA 5510. And I had two ISPs and I need to configure ISP failover. So which license i need? I Had License ASA-CSC10-PLUS License.
View 1 Replies View RelatedI have a couple of 5505's with base licenses. One of the two has a limited output when running the sho version command, as it has a restricted license. What license I would need to buy in order to bring it up to "normal" base license ?
View 1 Replies View RelatedI am setting up an ASA5515 to replace an existing Linux based firewall. Unfortunately the ASA5515 does not support source based routing.I have two internet connections currently used for specific connections - the second connection is NOT a failover connection.I have the default route to Internet connection 1.I want to route smtp out the second Internet connection.The routers connecting to the internet are a 877 and an 878The options I am considering is a layer 3 switch between the firewall and the routers to enable source based routing or replacing the 2 routers with a single router and the appropriate wic interfaces.
View 2 Replies View RelatedWe have deployed a few ASA 5585 SSP40 in our data centers to seperate different customer/security zones connected with 10Gig interfaces. Currently we have a dedicated log server attached to each ASA connected with a p2p 10Gig interface. While detailed log information is considered important I somehow have the gut feeling all this high end equipment and bandwidth is used a little too wasteful. I have little experience with these big firewalls and I have not yet seen the equipment in an attack situation, however I doubt a firewall could ever generate 10gig of log data, while doing the primary fire walling job at the same time. Looking at the typical packet size of a syslog message I don't even believe a 1 gig link could ever be saturated with pure syslog messages.
View 3 Replies View RelatedI have the following Setup, Two Cisco ASA 5520 needed to be configured in HA Active/Passive. The Firewalls includes also AIP module. Does the ASA 5520 will internally make the AIP modules also HA Active/Passive? Is there a document regarding the issue? Is there a seperate license for the AIP modules for HA scenario?
View 1 Replies View RelatedI am trying to understand zone base firewalls? I attempted to make the ip address 10.2.22.231 available to the outside world using port 80 and 443 on external interface(4) public IP address. I can see hits on the access list and Nat entries but it's not getting through.
Here is the config.
crypto pki trustpoint TP-self-signed
enrollment selfsigned
subject-name cn=IOS-Self-Signed-Certificate-
revocation-check none
[code].....
I've seen you can configure stateful failover between two routers running ip inspect classic firewall: url...Can the same be done yet for zone-firewall? I cannot find any documentation on it.
View 1 Replies View RelatedI'm sure this is simple to resolve. I just bought a new Cisco 2901 ISR Router. How do I configure the Cisco 2901 ISR Router for Zone Firewall? The "zone" command is not recognized and does not show up in the "?" list in config or user modes -
View 4 Replies View RelatedI'm trying to setup a zone behind my firewall with complete publicly routeable IP addresses for 3 servers. The reason I'm doing this is I am in the network setup stage of an OCS implementation, and OCS connections don't behave well with NAT.
My device is a ASA5520. I have an internal zone, and a dmz zone. These are done via standard NAT configurations.
My question is this:
Is it possible to setup connectivity to the outside with internal servers that have Public IP's directly on their NIC's? Another little detail of interest is that this ip space is seperate than the one that's on current Outside interface facing our ISP. However we own both address space.
-1x Cisco ASA5540
-1x Catalyst 3750x-48T (L3 Core Switch)
Id like to seek expertise on validating a simple firewall setup.
Do i trunk core switch traffic to the cisco ASA OR assign L3 link instead? It is basic understanding that the Cisco ASA is usually use for protection from our internet zone.A typical Cisco ASA setup would consist of outside, inside, dmz zone.
L3 core switch consist of 20 VLANS20 vlan needs to be blocked from each other. Eg Wireless Vlan does not have access to Server Vlan etc etc.
what is the best practise to filter ip address within vlan from reaching each other.Should i trunk all my vlan to the Cisco firewall? (For easy vlan restrictions: but is that best practise?)Or do ACL on the core switch itself? but what if i have tons of servers ip that needs specific ports blocking or etc.How would i be able to manage all my ACL on the core switch.