mailing list archives
Re: Ambiguities in TCP/IP - firewall bypassing
From: Florian Weimer <Weimer () CERT Uni-Stuttgart DE>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 11:50:42 +0200
Aaron Hopkins <lists () die net> writes:
On Sat, 19 Oct 2002, Florian Weimer wrote:
"established" in Cisco parlance does not mean "SYN unset", but "ACK or RST
set". This means that the impact for non-Linux hosts (which do not react
to SYN-RST packets according to Paul's survey) is less severe if your
filters run IOS.
This is true for IOS up through 11.3. The 12.0, 12.1, and 12.2
established: (Optional) For the TCP protocol only: Indicates an
established connection. A match occurs if the TCP datagram
has the ACK, FIN, PSH, RST, SYN or URG control bits set.
The nonmatching case is that of the initial TCP datagram to
form a connection."
This documentation is quite misleading. Our experiments with a 12.1
version suggests that RST and/or ACK bits cause the packet to pass.
If the documentation is correct, then you can fool IOS 12.0+ "permit tcp any
any established" at the top of an access list into letting you make
connections to any port on at least Linux 2.4.19, Solaris 5.8, FreeBSD 4.5,
and Windows NT 4.0, as reported by Paul Starzetz in the post starting this
The SYN,FIN combination is filtered (it's permitted by the RFC if you
read it carefully, I think, and some systems can cope with it).
Thats not necessarily true. At least with current IOS (12.2, perhaps
earlier), you can specify "permit tcp any any ack" instead of "permit tcp
any any established" to work around this bug entirely and retain almost all
Interesting, thanks. It's not documented for 12.1. The CLI accepts
it, though. I'll check if it's properly supported.
This approach is much more general than reflexive access lists (which
can break long-lasting interactive sessions because of the timeouts
Florian Weimer Weimer () CERT Uni-Stuttgart DE
University of Stuttgart http://CERT.Uni-Stuttgart.DE/people/fw/
RUS-CERT fax +49-711-685-5898
Re: Ambiguities in TCP/IP - firewall bypassing Florian Weimer (Oct 19)
Re: Ambiguities in TCP/IP - firewall bypassing David Wagner (Oct 19)
RE: Ambiguities in TCP/IP - firewall bypassing Ofir Arkin (Oct 22)
- Re: Ambiguities in TCP/IP - firewall bypassing, (continued)