Friday, June 19, 2015

Juniper SRX Vpn Debugging with "gateway-filter"

After a support session with jtac, I learned there's a hidden srx configuration to debug single vpns:

admin@srx# show security ike traceoptions
file vpn-trace size 10m;
gateway-filter {
    local-address x.x.x.x;
    remote-address y.y.y.y;

level 15;

This is equivalent to the operational command

request security ike debug-enable local x.x.x.x remote y.y.y.y

The jtac engineer used this command to debug an ipsec issue where SA's existed in the management plane but not in the data plane. Following command was used to list the dataplane SA's:

run request pfe execute command "show usp ipsec sa" target fwdd 

A security flow trace of the faulting session reported an unrelated error about missing traffic selectors:

Jun 17 18:47:04 18:47:04.409145:CID-1:RT:flow_ipv4_rt_lkup success, iifl 0x50, oifl 0xb8

Jun 17 18:47:04 18:47:04.409168:CID-1:RT:  routed (x_dst_ip from srxhq (reth0.1001 in 1) to st0.108, Next-hop:

Jun 17 18:47:04 18:47:04.409185:CID-1:RT:flow_first_policy_search: policy search from zone srxhq-> zone OMP-VPN (0x0,0x2ee0001,0x1)

Jun 17 18:47:04 18:47:04.409205:CID-1:RT:Policy lkup: vsys 0 zone(8:srxhq) -> zone(13:OMP-VPN) scope:0

Jun 17 18:47:04 18:47:04.409205:CID-1:RT:    -> proto 1

Jun 17 18:47:04 18:47:04.409212:CID-1:RT:  app 0, timeout 60s, curr ageout 60s

Jun 17 18:47:04 18:47:04.409212:CID-1:RT:  permitted by policy allow_any(6)

Jun 17 18:47:04 18:47:04.409294:CID-1:RT:  packet passed, Permitted by policy.

Jun 17 18:47:04 18:47:04.409294:CID-1:RT:flow_first_src_xlate:  nat_src_xlated: False, nat_src_xlate_failed: False

Jun 17 18:47:04 18:47:04.409294:CID-1:RT:flow_first_src_xlate:  incoming src port is : 750.

Jun 17 18:47:04 18:47:04.409294:CID-1:RT:flow_first_src_xlate: src nat returns status: 0, rule/pool id: 0/0, pst_nat: False.

Jun 17 18:47:04 18:47:04.409294:CID-1:RT:  dip id = 0/0,> protocol 0

Jun 17 18:47:04 18:47:04.409294:CID-1:RT:(flow_first_get_tun_info) Valid IP, using IP from session

Jun 17 18:47:04 18:47:04.409394:CID-1:RT:  Doing IPSec traffic-selector match for ->

Jun 17 18:47:04 18:47:04.409394:CID-1:RT: Did not find traffic-selector enabled nsp_tunnel for  st0-ifp st0.108. Finding non-traffic-selector nsp_tunnel

Jun 17 18:47:04 18:47:04.409394:CID-1:RT: get_nsp_tunnel - Tunnel not found. if st0.108, nexthop ip 0xbadc0ded, policy id 6

Jun 17 18:47:04 18:47:04.409394:CID-1:RT:  packet dropped, outgoing tunnel missing in tunnel-if

Jun 17 18:47:04 18:47:04.409394:CID-1:RT: outgoing tunnel missing in tunnel-if st0.108

Jun 17 18:47:04 18:47:04.409394:CID-1:RT:flow_first_get_out_ifp: get tunnel_info failed!

Jun 17 18:47:04 18:47:04.409394:CID-1:RT:flow_initiate_first_path: first pak no session

Jun 17 18:47:04 18:47:04.409394:CID-1:RT:  flow find session returns error.

Jun 17 18:47:04 18:47:04.409394:CID-1:RT: ----- flow_process_pkt rc 0x7 (fp rc -1)

It seems this issue cannot be resolved without impact (commit full, reboot, delete ike/ipsec).

Update: according to the support case this issue should be fixed in the next srx firmware release: 12.1X46-D40 

Tuesday, April 28, 2015

Junos Space Network Management Platform Vulnerabilities

Last year I spent some time looking for bugs in the Juniper Junos Space Network Management Platform . I discovered following security issues:
  • XSS in the event viewer by sending specially crafted syslog traffic log messages
  • XSS contained in ssl certificates
  • XSS in the integrated opennms network monitoring tool by sending specially crafted snmp traps (varbinding oid values are not properly escaped)
  • XSS in opennms by spoofing snmp get responses, for example a hostname containing html
  • Inject commands using the backup functionality
  • Junos Space manages its devices (routers, switches, firewalls) using ssh. However it does not verify ssh host keys, allowing mitm exploits.
The opnennms issues were reported to opennms also:

I reported these issues September last year to Juniper sirt. Only one of them (ssl cert xss) is fixed in the current release (14.1R2).
There are many more security issues which need to be addressed, however Juniper decided to spend its budget on different things .