If i understand correctly, SSH tunnelling allows for the binding of a local port to a remote port through a SSH server. If I'm right, could something similar be done with IPsec?
Yes, an IPSec VPN sends traffic through IPSec and split tunnelling is where you only send some of your data through the vpn.
I've not played with split tunnelling much and I've only seen it configured to split traffic by destination IP, but I'm sure there will be ways to do it by tcp/udp port. Can't really point you to more information without knowing what OS you want to do this on.
Hope this helps.
Related
Is there a way one could test whether the communication between two hosts is happening over the IPSec protocol?
I have two different hosts running the OpenSource Peer2PeerVPN solution. And I have one host listening for messages via the net-cat tool.
nc -v -l -p 9999
And the other host connected to this via the VPN tunnel
nc -v 192.168.188.2 9999
I want to verify or check whether the communication is actually happening over the IPSec protocol. Also, I would like to see the values of the IPSec Protocol's Authentication and Encapsulation Headers.
I tried tcpdump but I'm guessing it only provides a capture on the layer above the Network level - Transport.
EDIT:
Based on a comment below I downloaded a sample pcap file to view how headers look in a IPSec communication. I see that these traces have ESP headers of the IPSec protocol.
However, when I try the same with the VPN Tool I'm using I don't see any packets with ESP header on the tcpdump. I was listening on the VPN interface (peervpn0) that the tool creates.
To check if this was a problem with the tool, I connected to a remote server to which I usually connect using VPN and sent some data via netcat to my machine from inside the remote-machine (I ssh'ed in). I listened for all packets on the VPN interface created by the Cisco VPN Tool (utun0) with filter esp
tcpdump -vvv -i utun0 esp
Still, I did not see any traces.
What am I missing here?
Should I listen on the default interface (my wifi interface) via which the VPN tunnel is created to see the ESP Headers?
Or have understood something wrong here?
Thank You
Shabir
With some further reading I was able to find out that PeerVPN does not communicate over IPSec but using encryption and sends the data as UDP payload over the underlying interface.
I also saw that many of the VPN tools indeed do this and does encrypt the tunnel interface packets and forwards them over UDP in the underlying interface. Besides some VPN solutions have a separate option to enable IPSec protocol specifically.
Thank You.
In http the client supplies the hostname it used to connect to the service with. Now, for bare TCP connections, is there something similar one can do? My scenario is I have a service that has multiple open TCP ports and that works fine, but for convenience I would like to use the same port and subdomains. Is there any layer I can add on top (like a load balancer), or change the service? I have control over most things, basically anything goes.
Example:
Today I can connect to two TCP services like so: foobar.com:1001 and foobar.com:1002. Is it possible to have e.g. service-1.foobar.com:1000 go to foobar.com:1001 and service-2.foobar.com:1000 go to foobar.com:1002.
Different services can bind to same port but on different IP. Hence different domains shall resolve to different IPs : Port combination [where Port is same for all services]. And you can use Proxy service as from HA Proxy to route connections to final destination.
If I understand your question correctly based on your example then no it is not possible. In this case, there is no difference between an HTTP and TCP connection.
In both cases, the hostname is simply resolved to an ip address. If you setup DNS resolution for foobar.com, service-1.foobar.com, service-2.foobar.com to point to the same ip address then they will all go to the same machine.
I have at times needed to have a service running on a different port internally than it is accessible externally. For that, if you are running on Linux, you can simply use iptables to do the port forwarding.
You can find other stack overflow questions/answers for setting up the port forwarding.
https://serverfault.com/questions/140622/how-can-i-port-forward-with-iptables
I've been investigating networking for use in a two-player game I'm writing, and I'm still not clear on when a device must have a port forwarded in order to communicate with the outside world.
From what I've seen in other games, port forwarding is always required in order to host a server, but is not required on the client. In addition, there are other situations, such as skype (which, to my understanding is ultimately client to client), where neither end must forward a port.
So my question is, in over-the-Internet communication, when is and isn't port forwarding necessary, and what steps can i take as a developer to make it so my users don't have to worry about it? Thanks in advance!
Port forwarding is needed when a machine on the Internet needs to initiate a connection to a machine that's behind a firewall or NAT router. If the connection is initiated by the machine behind the firewall, the firewall/router automatically recognizes the reply traffic and sends it to the machine that opened the connection.
But if a packet arrives on the external interface, and it's not a part of such a connection, the router needs to know what to do with it. By default, it will reject it. But if forwarding is configured for the port, that tells it what internal machine to send it to.
Put another way: you need port forwarding if you want to run a server behind the NAT firewall/router, you don't need it if you're just running a client.
There is reason why Skype don't (not always) need manual setting of port forwarding:
When you install Skype, a port above 1024 is chosen at random as the
port for incoming connections. You can configure Skype to use a
different port for incoming connections if you wish, but if you do,
you must open the alternative port manually.
If the port chosen for incoming connections becomes unavailable, by
default ports 80 and 443 will be used as alternatives. If another
application (such as Apache HTTP server or IIS) uses these ports, you
can either configure the application to use other ports, or you can
configure Skype to not use these ports.
Port forwarding is must if you host a server.
You can use same technique as Skype...
I am not sure if there is any other option...
Port forwarding (occurs) when a NAT, firewall or some other device blocks communication on all or some ports.
To answer your question as an example, most commercial routers use NAT to allow multiple people to use the same IP(As view from the outside world) provided by ISPs. Most ISP's use NAT to allow multiple customers to use the same IP(As viewed from the outside world). To get this to work, the NAT changes the internal IP and the port number of a communication to THE(there is only one for the entire sub network) external IP and a new port number. By doing this, the router/isp/ect can tell which internal IP and port each external communication goes to.
Anytime one of the computers communicating over the internet are behind a NAT, port forwarding is required. I'm sure there are way more situations than this, and the solution to each can be quite complicated. But this covers the vast majority.
I am trying to find out the type of the tunnel used for a vpn.. I am trying to determing if the tunnel is tcp or udp.. how do I do that? When I observe the tunnel traffic I am not able to observe anything! In the sense that packets are sent as such..
You need to observe the traffic on the physical network connection, not the traffic in the tunnel itself:
Setup a network packet capture program, such as Wireshark, to capture the traffic on the "real" network interface e.g. your cabled Ethernet connection. On Linux it would be something along the lines of eth0.
(Optional) Shutdown as many processes that use the network as possible.
Cause as much traffic through the VPN tunnel as possible - e.g. download a large file.
Watch in your capture program for any change - the tunnel traffic should now stand out due to sheer volume.
Keep in mind that if you are using an IPSec tunnel, the packets will be ESP, which is neither TCP nor UDP.
I've noticed recently that I don't have to forward ports for mmorpg's that I play.
I'm thinking about working on a game that people can play online and had a question.
Why is this the case given its a two way socket connection that is constantly sending data back and forth? Doesn't their server need to get through my firewall in order to connect to me?
TCP crash lesson: TCP is a two-way protocol. The challenge is that at least one host needs to initiate. Since within an MMORPG, your own computer is never acting as a server, nobody has to connect to it. All the information about game state is passed through the company's public facing servers that have public facing IP addresses (and hey, maybe they actually use port forwarding there, just to confuse my explanation... but you never have to see their pretty network internals, proxies, and other wizardry.).
Anyway, when you connect to Stackoverflow, you're making one outbound connection that requests data from the server, and then over that same connection you're receiving it back. Same exact scenario, only with a webserver instead of a game.
UPnP allows you to tackle many routers. There's also NAT Punch-Through if you have access to a third party that isn't behind a router.
Either way, port forwarding is only necessary if you wish to act as a server (or the sender in a P2P relationship). A client does not need to forward ports.
You don't need to forward ports to access the web either, despite data coming in as well.
When you make an outgoing TCP connection, your NAT router puts the connection in a table, so that when data comes in, it knows what machine in your LAN to send the packet to.
Everyone mentions TCP, but NAT works for UDP as well: The first outgoing UDP packet associates that source port with the internal IP address, and your NAT device will forward incoming traffic to that port to the correct host on the internal network.
In other words, if your computer requests the connection (outbound) first, the router opens up the port automatically, on the assumption that you're going to want data back. But if you want remote users to connect to your computer without your computer requesting it, the router would normally drop the packets since it wouldn't know where to send them (they were unsolicited). So instead, you need to tell the router to deliver any unsolicited packets at port N to your computer.
Sorry to add another answer so late, and I know one was already accepted, but I personally found the other answers to be more confusing than this simple explanation.