Categories
Admin Network Technologies

The IT Detective Agency: Internet Explorer cannot display https web page, part II

Intro
They say when it rains it pours. As a harassed It support specialist its tempting to lump all similar-looking problems that come across your desk at the same time in the same bucket. This case shows the shallowness of that way of thinking, for that’s exactly what happened in this case. It occurred exactly when this case was occurring in which a user had an issue displaying a secure web site. That other case was described here.

The details
I was doing some work for a company when they came to me with a problem one user at HQ was having accessing an https web site. Everything else worked fine. The same web page worked fine from other sites.

Since I had helped them set up their proxy services I was keen to prove that the proxy wasn’t at fault. The user removed the proxy settings – still the error occurred. The desktop support got involved. I suggested a whole battery of tests because this was a weird one.
– what if you access via proxy?
– what if you take that laptop and access it from a VPN connection?
– what if you access another site which uses the same certificate-issuer?
– what if you access the host, but using http?
– can you PING the server?
– can you telnet to that server on port 443?
– what if you access the webpage by IP address?
– what if accessed via Firefox?
– etc.
The error, by the way, was

Internet Explorer cannot display the webpage

What you can try:
Diagnose Connection Problems

The answers came back like this:
– what if you access via proxy? It works!
– what if you take that laptop and access it from a VPN connection? It works.
– what if you access another site which uses the same certificate-issuer? It works.
– what if you access the host, but using http? It works.
– can you PING the server? Yes.
– can you telnet to that server on port 443? Yes
– what if you access the webpage by IP address? It does not work.
– Firefox? I don’t remember the answer to this.

Most of that thinking behind those tests is pretty obvious. Why so many tests? The networking group is kind of crotchety and understaffed, so they really wanted to eliminate all other possibilities first. And at one point I thought it could have been a desktop issue. Why would the network allow some of these packets through but not others when it doesn’t run a firewall? The desktop did have A-V and local firewall, after all.

So I didn’t have proof or even a good idea. Time to take out the big guns. We ran a trace on the server with tcpdump while the error occurred. The server was busy so we had to be pretty specific:

> tcpdump -s 1580 -w /tmp/drjcap.cap -i any host 10.19.79.216 and port 443

What do we see? We see the initial handshake go through just fine. Then a client Hello, then a server Hello, followed by a Certificate sent from the server to the client. The Certificate packet kept getting re-sent because there was no ACK to it from the client. So it’s beginning to smell like a dropped packet somewhere. I was hot on the trail but I decided I needed even stronger proof. We arranged to do simultaneous traces on both PC and server to compare the two results.

On the PC we had to install Wireshark. Actually I think Microsoft also has a utility to do traces but I’ve never used it. What did we find? Proof that there was indeed a dropped packet. That server certificate? Never received by the PC (which is acting as the SSL client). But why?

I had noticed one other funny thing about the trace comparisons. The server hello packet left as a packet of length 1518 bytes, but arrived, apparently, as two packets, one of length 778 bytes, the other of 770 bytes, i.e., it was fragmented. That should be OK. I don’t think the don’t fragment flag was set (have to check this). But it got me to wondering. Because the server certificate packet was also on the large side – 1460 bytes.

Regardless, I had enough ammo to go to the networking group with, which I did. It was like, “Oh yeah, our Telecom provider (let’s call it “CU”) implemented GETVPN around that time.” And further discussion revealed suspected other problems related to this change with MTU, etc. In fact they dredged up this nice description of the pitfalls that await GET VPN implementations from the Cisco deployment guide:

3.8 Designing Around MTU Issues Because of additional IPsec overhead added to each packet, MTU related issues are very common in IPsec deployments, and MTU size becomes a very important design consideration. If MTU value is not carefully selected by either predefining the MTU value on the end hosts or by dynamically setting it using PMTU discovery, the network performance will be impacted because of fragmentation and reassembly. In the worst case, the user applications will not work because network devices might not be able to handle the large packets and are unable to fragment them because of the df-bit setting. Some of the scenarios which can adversely affect traffic in a GET VPN environment and applicable mitigation techniques are discussed below. LAN MTU of 1500 – WAN MTU 44xx (MPLS) In this scenario, even after adding the 50-60 byte overhead, MTU size is much less than the MTU of the WAN. The MTU does not affect GET VPN traffic in any shape or form. LAN MTU of 1500 – WAN MTU 1500 In this scenario, when IPsec overhead is added to the maximum packet size the LAN can handle (i.e. 1500 bytes) the resulting packet size becomes greater than the MTU of the WAN. The following techniques could help reduce the MTU size to a value that the WAN infrastructure can actually handle. Manually setting a lower MTU on the hosts By manually setting the host MTU to 1400 bytes, IP packets coming in on the LAN segment will always have 100 extra bytes for encryption overhead. This is the easiest solution to the MTU issues but is harder to deploy because the MTU needs to be tweaked on all the hosts. TCP Traffic Configure ip tcp adjst-mss 1360 on GM LAN interface. This command will ensure that resulting IP packet on the LAN segment is less than 1400 bytes thereby providing 100 bytes for any overhead. If the maximum MTU is lowered by other links in the core (e.g. some other type of tunneling such as GRE is used in the core), the adjust-mss value can be lowered further. This value only affects TCP traffic and has no bearing on the UDP traffic. 3.8.1.1 Host compliant with PMTU discovery For non-TCP traffic, for a 1500 packet with DF bit set, the GM drops the packet and send ICMP message back to sender notifying it to adjust the MTU. If sender and the application is PMTU compliant, this will result in a packet size which can successfully be handled by WAN. For example, if a GM receives a 1500 byte IP packet with the df-bit set and encryption overhead is 60 bytes, GM will notify the sender to reduce the MTU size to 1440 bytes. Sender will comply with the request and the resulting WAN packets will be exactly 1500 bytes

I don’t claim to understand all those scenarios, but it shouts pretty loudly. Watch out for problems with packets of size 1400 bytes or larger!

Why would they want GET VPN? To encrypt the HQ communication over the WAN. So the idea is laudable, but the execution lacking.

Case: understood but not yet closed! The fix is not yet in…

To be continued…

Categories
Admin Internet Mail Linux Perl

The IT Detective Agency: last letter of attachment name is missing!

Intro
Today we bring you an IT whodunit thriller. A user using Lotus Notes informs his local IT that a process that emails SQL reports to him and a few others has suddenly stopped working correctly. The reports either contain an HTML attachment where the attachment type has been chopped to “ht” instead of “htm,” or an MHTML attachment type which has also been chopped, down to “mh” instead of “mht.” They get emailed from the reporting server to a sendmail mail relay. Now the convenient ability to double-click on the attachment and launch it stopped working as a result of these chopped filenames. What’s going on? Fix it!

Let’s Reproduce the Problem
Fortunately this one was easier than most to reproduce. But first a digression. Let’s have some fun and challenge ourselves with it before we deep dive. What do you think the culprit is? What’s your hypothesis? Drawing on my many years of experience running enterprise-class sendmail servers, and never before having seen this problem despite the hundreds of millions of delivered emails, my best instincts told me to look elsewhere.

The origin server, let’s call it aspen, sends few messages, so I had the luxury to turn on tracing on my sendmail server with a filter limiting the traffic to its IP:

$ tcpdump -i eth0 -s 1540 -w /tmp/aspen.cap host aspen

Using wireshark to analyze asp.cap and following the tcp stream I see this:

...
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
		 boundary="CSmtpMsgPart123X456_000_C800C42D"
 
This is a multipart message in MIME format
 
--CSmtpMsgPart123X456_000_C800C42D
Content-Type: text/plain;
		 charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
 
SQLplus automated report
--CSmtpMsgPart123X456_000_C800C42D
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
		 name="tower status_2012_06_04--09.25.00.htm"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: attachment;
		 filename="tower status_2012_06_04--09.25.00.htm
 
<html><head></head><body><h1>Content goes here...</h1></body>
</html>
 
--CSmtpMsgPart123X456_000_C800C42D--

Result of trace of original email as received by sendmail

But the source as viewed from within Lotus Notes is:

...
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
		 boundary="CSmtpMsgPart123X456_000_C800C42D"
 
 
--CSmtpMsgPart123X456_000_C800C42D
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
		 charset="iso-8859-1"
 
SQLplus automated report
--CSmtpMsgPart123X456_000_C800C42D
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
		 name="tower status_2012_06_04--09.25.00.htm"
Content-Disposition: attachment;
		 filename="tower status_2012_06_04--09.25.00.ht"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
 
PGh0bWw+PGhlYWQ+PC9oZWFkPjxib2R5PjxoMT5Db250ZW50IGdvZXMgaGVyZS4uLjwvaDE+PC9i
b2R5Pg0KPC9odG1sPg==
 
--CSmtpMsgPart123X456_000_C800C42D--

Same email after being trasferred to Lotus Notes

I was in shock.

I fully expected the message source to go through unaltered all the way into Lotus Notes, but it didn’t. The trace taken before sendmail’s actions was not an exact match to the source of the message I received. So either sendmail or Lotus Notes (or both) were altering the source in significant ways.

At the same time, we got a big clue as to what is behind the missing letter in the file extension. To highlight it, compare this line from the trace:

filename=”tower status_2012_06_04–09.25.00.htm

to that same line as it appears in the Lotus Notes source:

filename=”tower status_2012_06_04–09.25.00.ht

So there is no final close quote (“) in the filename attribute as it comes from the aspen server! That can’t be good.

But it used to work. What do we make of that fact??

I had to dig farther. I was suddenly reminded of the final episode of House where it is apparent that the solving the puzzle of symptoms is the highest aspiration for Doctor House. Maybe I am similarly motivated? Because I was definitely willing to throw the full weight of my resources behind this mystery. At least for the half-day I had to spare on this.

First step was to reproduce the problem myself. For sending an email you would normally use sendmail or mailx or such, but I didn’t trust any of those programs – afraid they would mess with my headers in secret, undocumented ways.

So I wrote my own mail sending program using Perl/Expect. Now I’m not advocating this as a best practice. It’s just that for me, given my skillset and perceived difficulty in finding a proper program to do what I wanted (which I’m sure is out there), this was the path of least resistance, the best and most efficient use of my time. You see, I already had the core of the program written for another purpose, so I knew it wouldn’t be too difficult to finish for this purpose. And I admit I’m not the best at Expect and I’m not the best at Perl. I just know enough to get things done and pretty quickly at that.

OK. Enough apologies. Here’s that code:

#!/usr/bin/perl
# drjohnstechtalk.com - 6/2012
# Send mail by explicit use of the protocol
$DEBUG = 1;
use Expect;
use Getopt::Std;
getopts('m:r:s:');
$recip = $opt_r;
$sender = $opt_s;
$hostname = $ENV{HOSTNAME};
chop($hostname);
print "hostname,mailhost,sender,recip: $hostname,$opt_m,$sender,$recip\n" if $DEBUG;
$telnet = "telnet";
@hosts = ($opt_m);
$logf = "/var/tmp/smtpresults.log";
 
$timeout = 15;
 
$data = qq(Subject: test of strange MIME error
X-myHeader: my-value
From: $sender
To: $recip
Subject: SQLplus Report - tower status
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 9:25:10 --0400
Importance: Normal
X-Mailer: ATL CSmtp Class
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
        boundary="CSmtpMsgPart123X456_000_C800C42D"
 
This is a multipart message in MIME format
 
--CSmtpMsgPart123X456_000_C800C42D
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
 
SQLplus automated report
--CSmtpMsgPart123X456_000_C800C42D
Content-Type: application/octet-stream;
        name="tower status_2012_06_04--09.25.00.htm"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: attachment;
        filename="tower status_2012_06_04--09.25.00.htm
 
<html><head></head><body><h1>Content goes here...</h1></body>
</html>
--CSmtpMsgPart123X456_000_C800C42D--
 
.
);
sub myInit {
# This structure is ugly (p.148 in the book) but it's clear how to fill it
@steps = (
        { Expect => "220 ",
          Command => "helo $hostname"},
# Envelope sender
        { Expect => "250 ",
          Command => "mail from: $sender"},
# Envelope recipient
        { Expect => "250 ",
          Command => "rcpt to: $recip"},
# data command
        { Expect => "250 ",
          Command => "data"},
# start mail message
        { Expect => "354 Enter ",
          Command => $data},
# end session nicely
        { Expect => "250 Message accepted ",
          Command => "quit"},
);
}       # end sub myInit
#
# Main program
open(LOGF,">$logf") || die "Cannot open log file!!\n";
foreach $host (@hosts) {
  login($host);
}
 
# create an Expect object by spawning another process
sub login {
($host) = @_;
myInit();
#@params = ($host," 25");
$init_command = "$telnet $host 25";
#$Expect::Debug = 3;
my $exp = Expect->spawn("$init_command")
         or die "Cannot spawn $command: $!\n";
#
# Now run all the other commands
foreach $step (@steps) {
  $i++;
  $expstr = %{$step}->{Expect};
  $cmd = %{$step}->{Command};
#  print "expstr,cmd: $expstr, $cmd\n";
# Logging
#$exp->debug(2);
#$exp->exp_internal(1);
  $exp->log_stdout(0);  # disable stdout for each command
  $exp->log_file($logf);
  @match_patterns = ($expstr);
  ($matched_pattern_position, $error, $successfully_matching_string, $before_match, $after_match) = $exp->expect($timeout,
@match_patterns);
  unless ($matched_pattern_position == 1) {
    $err = 1;
    last;
  }
  #die "No match: error was: $error\n" unless $matched_pattern_position == 1;
  # We got our match. Proceed.
  $exp->send("$cmd\n");
}       # end loop over all the steps
 
#
# hard close
$exp->hard_close();
close(LOGF);
#unlink($logf);
}       # end sub login

Code for sendmsg2.pl

Invoke it:

$ ./sendmsg2.pl -m sendmail_host -s drj@drj.com -r drj@drj.com

The nice thing with this program is that I can inject a message into sendmail, but also I can inject it directly into the Lotus Notes smtp gateway, bypassing sendmail, and thereby triangulate the problem. The sendmail and Lotus Notes servers have slightly different responses to the various protocol stages, hence I clipped the Expect strings down to the minimal common set of characters after some experimentation.

This program makes it easy to test several scenarios of interest. Leave the final quote and inject into either sendmail or Lotus Notes (LN). Tack on the final quote to see if that really fixes things. The results?

Missing final quote

with final quote added

inject to sendmail

ht” in final email to LN; extension chopped

htm” and all is good

inject to LN

htm in final email; but extension not chopped

htm” and all is good

I now had incontrovertible proof that sendmail, my sendmail was altering the original message. It is looking at the unbalanced quote mark situation and recovering as best as possible by replacing the terminating character “m” with the missing double quote “. I was beginning to suspect it. After that shock drained away, I tried to check the RFCs. I figured it must be some well-meaning attempt on its part to make things right. Well, the RFCs, 822 and 1806 are a little hard to read and apply to this situation.

Let’s be clear. There’s no question that the sender is wrong and ought to be closing out that quote. But I don’t think there’s some single, unambiguous statement from the RFCs that make that abundantly apparent. Nevertheless, of course that’s what I told them to do.

The other thing from reading the RFC is that the whole filename attribute looks optional. To satisfy my curiosity – and possibly provide more options for remediation to aspen – I sent a test where I entirely left out the offending filename=”tower… line. In that case the line above it should have its terminating semicolon shorn:

Content-Disposition: attachment

After all, there already is a name=”tower…” as a Content-type parameter, and the string following that was never in question: it has its terminating semicolon.

Yup, that worked just great too!

Then I thought of another approach. Shouldn’t the overriding definition of the what the filetype is be contained in the Content-type header? What if it were more correctly defined as

Content-type: text/html

?

Content-type appears in two places in this email. I changed them both for good measure, but left the unbalanced quotations problem. Nope. Lotus Notes did not know what to with the attachment it displays as tower status_2012_06_04–09.25.00.ht. So we can’t recommend that course of action.

What Sendmail’s Point-of-View might be
Looking at the book, I see sendmail does care about MIME headers, in particular it cares about the Content-Disposition header. It feels that it is unreliable and hence merely advisory in nature. Also, some years ago there was a sendmail vulnerability wherein malformed multipart MIME messages could cause sendmail to crash (see http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/146718. So maybe sendmail is just a little sensitive to this situation and feels perfectly comfortable and justified in right-forming a malformed header. Just a guess on my part.

Case closed.

Conclusion
We battled a strange email attachment naming error which seemed to be an RFC violation of the MIME protocols. By carefully constructing a testing program we were easily able to reproduce the problem and isolate the fault and recommend corrective actions in the sending program. Now we have a convenient way to inject SMTP email whenever and wherever we want. We feel sendmail’s reputation remains unscathed, though its corrective actions could be characterized as overly solicitous.

Categories
Admin IT Operational Excellence Linux Proxy Web Site Technologies

The IT Detective Agency: intermittent web page not found error

Intro
One of the high arts of IT is system integration, and an important off-shoot of this is acquisitions. We are involved in integrating a new location, which, unfortunately, we do not yet have full access to. The local networking is still provided by their vendor, not ours and this makes troubleshooting all the more difficult.

The Details
So the word begins to spread that users at this site are having intermittent problems accessing some of our secure web sites. As it was described to me, they can load the page in their browser for, say five straight times, get a simple Internet Explorer cannot display the web page error, and the sixth time (or whenever) it will load properly. All other connectivity was working. No one else at other locations was having this problem with this web site. More than strange, right?

In drjohn’s perfect IT world, problem reproducibility is critical to resolution, but we simply didn’t have it this time. I also could not produce the problem myself, which means relying on other people.

I’m not sure if we tried to contact their vendor or not at first. But if we had I’m sure they would have denied having anything to do with it.

So we got one of our confederates, Tim, over to this location and we hooked him up with Wireshark so he could get take a packet trace when the failure occurs. It wasn’t long before Tim reproduced the error and emailed us the packet capture.

In the following the PC has IP address 10.200.23.34, the web server is at 10.4.5.6. The Linux command used to look at the capture file is:

# tcpdump -A -r bodega-error.cap port 443 > /tmp/dump

1 15:54:27.495952 IP 10.200.23.34 > 10.4.5.6.https: S 2803722614:2803722614(0) win 64240 <mss 1460,nop,wscale 0,nop,nop,sackOK>
2 15:54:27.496309 IP 10.4.5.6.https > 10.200.23.34: S 3201081612:3201081612(0) ack 2803722615 win 5840 <mss 1432,nop,nop,sackOK>
3 15:54:27.496343 IP 10.200.23.34 > 10.4.5.6.https: . ack 1 win 64240
4 15:54:27.497270 IP 10.200.23.34 > 10.4.5.6.https: P 1:82(81) ack 1 win 64240
5 15:54:27.497552 IP 10.4.5.6.https > 10.200.23.34: . ack 82 win 5840
6 15:54:30.743827 IP 10.4.5.6.https > 10.200.23.34: P 1:286(285) ack 82 win 5840
..S.......^M..i.P.......HTTP/1.0 200 OK^M
Cache-Control: no-store^M
Pragma: no-cache^M
Cache-Control: no-cache^M
X-Bypass-Cache: Application and Content Networking System Software 5.5.17^M
Connection: Close^M
^M
<HTML><HEAD><META HTTP-EQUIV="REFRESH" CONTENT="0;URL=https://10.4.5.6/"></HEAD><BODY>
</BODY></HTML>
 
7 15:54:30.744036 IP 10.200.23.34 > 10.4.5.6.https: F 82:82(0) ack 286 win 63955
8 15:54:30.744052 IP 10.4.5.6.https > 10.200.23.34: F 286:286(0) ack 82 win 5840
9 15:54:30.744077 IP 10.200.23.34 > 10.4.5.6.https: . ack 287 win 63955
10 15:54:30.744289 IP 10.4.5.6.https > 10.200.23.34: . ack 83 win 5840

The output was scrubbed a bit of meaningless junk characters and I added serial packets numbers in the beginning by hand because I don’t (yet) know how to do that with tcpdump!

What, It’s Encrypted – what can you even learn from a trace?
Yeah, an SSL stream sure adds to the already steep challenges we faced in this problem. There just isn’t much to work with. But it is something. I’m about to say what I noticed in this packet trace, but for it to be meaningful you need to know like I did that the web server is situated almost four thousand miles from the user’s location.

The first packet is a SYN from the PC to web server on TCP port 443. So far so good. In fact packets one – three constitute the three-way handshake in TCP.

Although SSL is encrypted, the beginning of the protocol communication should show the SSL cipher being chosen. Unfortunately, tcpdump doesn’t seem to have the smarts to show any of this. So I got myself ssldump. On Ubuntu:

# sudo apt-get install ssldump

did the trick. Then run this same capture file through ssldump, which has very similar arguments to tcpdump:

# ssldump -r bodega-error.cap port 443

New TCP connection #1: 10.200.23.34(2027) <-> 10.4.5.6(443)
1 1  0.0013 (0.0013)  C>S SSLv2 compatible client hello
  Version 3.1
  cipher suites
  TLS_RSA_WITH_RC4_128_MD5
  TLS_RSA_WITH_RC4_128_SHA
  TLS_RSA_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA
  SSL2_CK_RC4
  SSL2_CK_3DES
  SSL2_CK_RC2
  TLS_RSA_WITH_DES_CBC_SHA
  SSL2_CK_DES
  TLS_RSA_EXPORT1024_WITH_RC4_56_SHA
  TLS_RSA_EXPORT1024_WITH_DES_CBC_SHA
  TLS_RSA_EXPORT_WITH_RC4_40_MD5
  TLS_RSA_EXPORT_WITH_RC2_CBC_40_MD5
  SSL2_CK_RC4_EXPORT40
  SSL2_CK_RC2_EXPORT40
  TLS_DHE_DSS_WITH_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA
  TLS_DHE_DSS_WITH_DES_CBC_SHA
  TLS_DHE_DSS_EXPORT1024_WITH_DES_CBC_SHA
  Unknown value 0xff
Unknown SSL content type 72
1    3.2480 (3.2467)  C>S  TCP FIN
1 2  3.2481 (0.0000)  S>CShort record
1    3.2481 (0.0000)  S>C  TCP FIN

The way to interpret this is that 0.0013 s into the TCP port 443 communication the cipher suites listed above were sent by the PC to the server. This corresponds to our packet number 4 in the trace file.

Using Wireshark to look at the trace is a lot more convenient – it provides packet numbers, timing, decodes packets and displays the SSL ciphers. But I wanted to show that it _could_ be done with text-based tools.

Look at the timings more closely. In the tcpdump output, packet 2, the SYN ACK, comes 1 ms after the SYN. But given the distances involved between PC and server, the SYN ACK should have come more like 100 ms later, at least. Similarly packet 5, which is an ACK, comes less than 1 ms after packet 4. A 1 ms ACK? Physically impossible.

I have seen this behaviour before – on our own load balance – which I know employs some TCP optimization tricks. So I concluded that they must have physically present at this site some kind of appliance which is doing TCP optimization. It can only provide blank ACKs in its rapid-fire responses since it can’t know what data the server is really going to respond with. That might all be OK. But I’m pretty sure the problem lies between packets 5 and 6. 5 is one of those meaningless rapid-fire empty ACKs generated by the local router. But the PC has just sent a wish list of SSL ciphers in packet 4. It needs to be responded to by the server which has to finish setting up the SSL session.

But that critical packet from the server never arrives. Perhaps even some of the SSL handshake is secretly completed between the local router and the server. Who knows? I have heard of man-in-the-middle devices that decrypt SSL sessions. And packet 6 contains fairly inappropriate content. It almost does look like it has been manufactured by a man-in-the-middle device. Its telling the browser to do a redirect to the same site, except specified by IP address rather than FQDN. And that doesn’t make a lot of sense. The browser likely realizes that this amounts to a looping redirect request so at that point it probably decides to cut its losses and FIN the connection in packet 7.

I traced my own PC hitting this same web server. Now I know we don’t have any of these optimizing devices between me and the web server. I don’t have time to show the results here, but to summarize, it looks rather completely different from the trace above. The ACK packets come back in about 100 ms or so. There is no delay of three seconds. The cipher proposals are responded to in a timely fashion. There is no redirect.

Their Side of the Story
We did get to hear back from the vendor who supports the LAN/WAN. They said they were running WCCP and diverting traffic to a proxy server. This was the correct behaviour before we hooked our infrastructure to this site, but is no longer. They realized this was probably a bad thing and took corrective action to turn off WCCP for destinations in the internal network 10.0.0.0/8.

Conclusion
Shutting off WCCP, which diverted web site requests to an old proxy server, fixed the problem.

Case closed.

Unsolved Mysteries
I wish we could tie all the loose ends neatly up, but there are too many players involved. We’ll never really know why the problem was intermittent, for instance. Or why some secure web sites could be accessed without any issue whatsoever throughout this ordeal.

WCCP, Web cache Communication Protocol, is a Cisco-developed routing protocol to transparently intercept traffic destined for web servers. More information can be found on it in wikipedia.

It bothers me that after the SSL session was initiated the dump showed the source, unencrypted, of the HTML redirect packet. Why wasn’t that encrypted? Perhaps the WCCP-invoked proxy server was desperately trying to help the PC recover from an unrecoverable situation and manufactured that HTTP-EQUIV REFRESH… to try to force the PC to choose a web site that might work. The fact that it was sent unencrypted over a channel that should have been encrypted was probably even the death bell that triggered the browser to think this makes no sense at all and is even a violation of security, I’m getting out of here.

Categories
Admin IT Operational Excellence Network Technologies

The IT Detective Agency: ARP Entry OK, PING not Working

Intro
Yes, the It detective agency is back by popular demand. This time we’ve got ourselves a thriller involving a piece of equipment – a wireless LAN controller, WLAN – on a directly connected network. From the router we could see the arp entry for the WLAN, but we could not PING it. Why?

A trace, or more correctly the output of tcpdump run on the router interface connected to that network, showed this:

>
12:08:59.623509  I arp who-has rtr7687.drjohnhilgarts.com tell wlan.drjohnhilgarts.com
12:08:59.623530  O arp reply rtr7687.drjohnhilgarts.com is-at 01:a1:00:74:55:12 (oui Nokia Internet Communications)
12:09:01.272922  I STP 802.1d, Config, Flags [none], bridge-id 2332.3c:df:1e:8f:2b:c0.8312, length 43
12:09:03.271765  I STP 802.1d, Config, Flags [none], bridge-id 2332.3c:df:1e:8f:2b:c0.8312, length 43
12:09:05.271469  I STP 802.1d, Config, Flags [none], bridge-id 2332.3c:df:1e:8f:2b:c0.8312, length 43
12:09:07.271885  I STP 802.1d, Config, Flags [none], bridge-id 2332.3c:df:1e:8f:2b:c0.8312, length 43
12:09:09.271804  I STP 802.1d, Config, Flags [none], bridge-id 2332.3c:df:1e:8f:2b:c0.8312, length 43
12:09:09.622902  I arp who-has rtr7687.drjohnhilgarts.com tell wlan.drjohnhilgarts.com
12:09:09.622922  O arp reply rtr7687.drjohnhilgarts.com is-at 01:a1:00:74:55:12 (oui Nokia Internet Communications)
12:09:11.271567  I STP 802.1d, Config, Flags [none], bridge-id 2332.3c:df:1e:8f:2b:c0.8312, length 43
12:09:13.271716  I STP 802.1d, Config, Flags [none], bridge-id 2332.3c:df:1e:8f:2b:c0.8312, length 43
12:09:15.271971  I STP 802.1d, Config, Flags [none], bridge-id 2332.3c:df:1e:8f:2b:c0.8312, length 43
12:09:17.040748  I b8:c7:5d:19:b9:9e (oui Unknown) > Broadcast Null Unnumbered, xid, Flags [Command], length 46
12:09:17.271663  I STP 802.1d, Config, Flags [none], bridge-id 2332.3c:df:1e:8f:2b:c0.8312, length 43
12:09:19.271832  I STP 802.1d, Config, Flags [none], bridge-id 2332.3c:df:1e:8f:2b:c0.8312, length 43
12:09:19.392578  I b8:c7:5d:19:b9:9e (oui Unknown) > Broadcast Null Unnumbered, xid, Flags [Command], length 46
12:09:19.623515  I arp who-has rtr7687.drjohnhilgarts.com tell wlan.drjohnhilgarts.com
12:09:19.623535  O arp reply rtr7687.drjohnhilgarts.com is-at 01:a1:00:74:55:12 (oui Nokia Internet Communications)
12:09:20.478397  O arp reply rtr7687.drjohnhilgarts.com is-at 01:a1:00:74:55:12 (oui Nokia Internet Communications)
12:09:21.271714  I STP 802.1d, Config, Flags [none], bridge-id 2332.3c:df:1e:8f:2b:c0.8312, length 43
12:09:23.271697  I STP 802.1d, Config, Flags [none], bridge-id 2332.3c:df:1e:8f:2b:c0.8312, length 43
12:09:25.271664  I STP 802.1d, Config, Flags [none], bridge-id 2332.3c:df:1e:8f:2b:c0.8312, length 43
12:09:27.272156  I STP 802.1d, Config, Flags [none], bridge-id 2332.3c:df:1e:8f:2b:c0.8312, length 43
12:09:29.271730  I STP 802.1d, Config, Flags [none], bridge-id 2332.3c:df:1e:8f:2b:c0.8312, length 43
12:09:29.621882  I arp who-has rtr7687.drjohnhilgarts.com tell wlan.drjohnhilgarts.com
12:09:29.621903  O arp reply rtr7687.drjohnhilgarts.com is-at 01:a1:00:74:55:12 (oui Nokia Internet Communications)
12:09:31.271765  I STP 802.1d, Config, Flags [none], bridge-id 2332.3c:df:1e:8f:2b:c0.8312, length 43
12:09:33.271858  I STP 802.1d, Config, Flags [none], bridge-id 2332.3c:df:1e:8f:2b:c0.8312, length 43

What’s interesting is what isn’t present. No PINGs. No unicast traffic whatsoever, yet we knew the WLAN was generating traffic. The frequent arp requests for the same IP strongly hinted that the WLAN was not getting the response. We were not able to check the arp table of the WLAN. And we knew the WLAN was supposed to respond to our PINGs, but it wasn’t. Yet the router’s arp table had the correct entry for the WLAN, so we knew it was plugged into the right switch port and on the right vlan. We also triple-checked that the network masks matched on both devices. Let’s go back. Was it really on the right vlan??

The Solution
What we eventually realized is that in the WLAN GUI, VLANs were assigned to the various interfaces. the switch port, on a Cisco switch, was a regular access port. We reasoned (documentation was scarce) that the interface was vlan tagging its traffic. So we tried to change the access port to a trunk port and enter the correct vlan. Here’s the show conf snippet:

interface GigabitEthernet1/17
 description 5508-wlan
 switchport
 switchport trunk encapsulation dot1q
 switchport trunk allowed vlan 887
 switchport mode trunk
 spanning-tree portfast edge trunk

Bingo! With that in place we could ping the WLAN and it could send us its traffic.

Case closed.

2018 update
I had totally forgotten my own posting. And I’ll be damned if in the heat of connecting a new firewall to a switch port we didn’t have this weird situation where we could see MAC entries of the firewall, and it could see MACs of other devices on that vlan, but nobody could ping the firewall and vica versa. A trace from tcpdump looked roughly similar to the above – a lot of arp who-has firewall, tell server. Sure enough, the firewall guy, new to the group, had configured all his ports to be tagged ports, even those with a single vlan. It had been our custom to make single vlans non-tagged ports. I didn’t start it, that’s just how it was. More than an hour was lost debugging…

And earlier in the year was yet another similar incident, where a router operated by a vendor joining one of our vlans assumed tagged ports where we did not. More than an hour was lost debugging… See a pattern there?

I had forgotten my own post from seven years ago to such an extent, I was just about to write a new one when I thought, Maybe I’ve covered that before. So old topics are new once again… Here’s to remember this for the next time!

Where to watch out for this
When you don’t run all the equipment. If you ran it all you’d have the presence of mind to make all the ports consistent.

Some terminology
A tagged port can also be known as using 802.1q, which is also known as dot1q, which in Cisco world is known as a trunk port. In the absence of that, you would have an access port (Cisco terminology) or untagged port (everyone else).

Conclusion
OK, there are probably many reasons and scenarios in which devices on the same network can see each other’s arp entries, but not send unicast traffic. But, the scenario we have laid out above definitely produces that effect, so keep it in mind as a possibility should you ever encounter this issue.

Categories
Admin IT Operational Excellence Network Technologies

Internet Service Providers Block TCP Port 22 or Do They?

Intro
The original premise of this article is that some Internet Service Providers were seen to block TCP port 22, used by ssh and sftp. However, as often happens during active IT investigations, this turns out to be completely wrong. In fact there was a block in this case we studied, but not by the ISPs. An overly aggressive ACL on the customer premise equipment Internet router is in fact the culprit.

The Problem
(IPs skewed to protect whatever) We asked a partner to do an sftp to drjohnstechtalk.com. All firewall and routing rules were in place. The partner tried it. He saw a SYN packet leaving, but no packets being returned. Here at drjohnstechtalk, we didn’t see any packets whatsoever! This partner makes sftp connections to other servers successfully. What the heck?

We had them try the following basic command:

nc -v host 22

where host is the IP of the target server. The response was:

nc: connect to host port 22 (tcp) failed: No route to host

But switching to port 21 (FTP) showed completely different behaviour: there was no message whatsoever and the session hanged. That’s good! That’s the usual firewalls dropping packets. But this No route to host needs more exploration.

Getting Closer
So we did an open trace. I mean a tcpdump without any limiting expression. The dump showed the SYN out to port 22, followed by this nugget:

13:09:14.279176 IP Sprint_IP > src_IP: ICMP host target_IP unreachable - admin prohibited filter, length 36

Next Steps
This well-intentioned filtering is causing a business problem. The Cisco IOS ACL that got them into trouble was this one:

ip access-list extended drop-spoof-and-telnet
 deny   tcp any any eq 22 log-input

Solution
They liked the idea of this filtering, but apparently this was the first request for inbound ssh access. So they decided to keep this filter rule but precede it with more specific rules as required, essentially acting like a second firewall:

ip access-list extended drop-spoof-and-telnet
 permit tcp host IP_src host IP_dest eq 22
  deny   tcp any any eq 22 log-input
Categories
IT Operational Excellence Network Technologies

Swapping Servers while Preserving IPs – What Might Go Wrong

The Setup

I had this experience last week. I needed to swap a virtual server in place of a physical server. I had all the access I needed on both servers to do the necessary network changes, which is how I customarily do these things. I implement network configuration changes as opposed to, say, plugging cables in and pulling others out.

The Issue

Anyways, this sounded straightforward enough.  The physical server had  a backup interface on a different segment – one that I could access from the backup interface of another server also on that backup segment (so that I wouldn’t disconnect myself as I was shutting down the primary interface).  So as I was saying, simple: shutdown the primary interface on the physical server, configure the VM’s intereface similar to the physical server, reboot the virtual server so the interface changes take effect and can be seen to be working even after a reboot.  But it didn’t work, or more precisely, it half-worked.  Why?

A Trail of Hints

Here’s what I didn’t yet say that turns out that has a significant role though I did not know it at the time.  See, that interface had two IPs defined, a primary and a virtual, I’ll call it secondary since virtual is a loaded term, IP, both on the same segment, i.e., eth0 and eth0:ns2v.  After the switch eth0 was working OK, but eth0:ns2v was not!  I also need to mention how they are used, from a network perspective, to see if you are following the hints and can guess what the problem might be before I spell it out.  I have different DNS servers bound to these interfaces.  They are resolving DNS servers.  It actually does not matter (another hint!) but the OS is SLES 11.

Final hint: eth0 probably took a few minutes to work, eth0:ns2v was not working even after 17 minutes.  By not working I mean that I could see the interface on the VM come up OK, my DNS server was bound to it and I could send it queries from the VM itself.  But queries from servers on other segments to this secondary were not being returned.  I tried a trace on the VM: tcpdump -i eth0:ns2v  (OK. I lied.  More hints on the way.  This is how you solve such problems!), while doing a PING from a server on another segment. Nothing coming in.  PINGs and DNS queries to primary interface were coming in fine however.  So I know I had my routing correct.

Biggest hint of all: I could PING this secondary interface from another server on the same segment!

So what the heck is going on here?  And it’s late at night of course so no one is disturbed by this change.  I begin to suspect the router.  After all, everything else is good, right?

Do I bother the network guy to fix his router?  For me that’s akin to admitting failture to plan.  So, no, I don’t want to.  That secondary interface isn’t that important.  it could wait until morning.  But it nags at me…

First Inkling

Then it hits me.  The Aha moment.  Let me back up.  Like I said I become convinced that the router is simply wrong.  But it’s one device I do not have any administrative access to.  What do I mean by “wrong” from a network engineer’s point-of-view?  I became convinced that its ARP table hadn’t aged out its entry for the secondary IP as it ought to have.  All hosts maintain an ARP table which stores the correspondence between IP address and MAC address of other devices on the same segment.  It’s how a device “knows” to talk to the right device when an application specifies an IP address – by correctly converting it into a MAC address.  So, you see, I preserved IPs.  But what if  the router held onto the old MAC address for the secondary IP?  It would try to send traffic destined for that IP which came in from other segments to the wrong place, or no place at all, since the old MAC was now offline.  I’m not exactly sure what happens to those packets.  I’d have to investigate and think about it some more.  Could be they get sent out via the switch but dropped by the switch as there’s no place to deliver them.

But the one IP, the main one, was working.  If you can’t solve what’s wrong, it’s a good idea to review what’s gone right amongst the things which are closely related.  And try to understand the difference in the two cases.

Aha Moment

That was the real Aha moment.  A server is always doing a bit of communication.  This and that chatter.  I realized the router was seeing some of that, and that it was all coming from the main IP.  Why? Because that’s just how things work in IPv4.  Usually.  So it made some sense that the router would update the ARP entry of the main IP.  After all it was seeing these packets come to it which contained the new MAC address/old IP address.  So it probably “knew” to update its ARP table with the new MAC from those packets.  But it wasn’t getting any packets that contained the new MAC address/old secondary IP address combination!  Knowing this situation, you would hope, as a reasonable person, that there would be an ARP table timer on all the ARP entries and they would simply age out and be renewed from time-to-time to prevent just such a situation.  You would hope, but it wasn’t happening.  17 minutes is a long time.  I later learned that this was an old router.  Supposedly it has an ARP timer of five or ten minutes.  But I know that isn’t correct. 

But I did not know any of that at the time.  I knew the main interface worked, the secondary didn’t.   Packets were streaming out of the primary to the router, no packets were streaming from the secondary to the router.  So I asked myself: how can I send packets from the secondary interface??  How do you do that?

I suspected two ways offhand.  I’m sure there are lots of others.  I suspected PING could do it.  Check the man pages.  Yup. ping -I interface_address.  Bingo.  I decided to ping the router, which is, of course, my default gateway, with the secondary IP as source.  The packets were returned.  Good.  Then I noticed that my monitors were completing.  I checked seconds later.  Sure enough, I could now reach that secondary IP from other segments.  Yeah!  Problem resolved.

Mystery solved, and no cold call to the networking group required.

Tying Up the Loose Ends

What would I have asked for if I had called the networking group?  I would have told them I suspect the ARP table on their router was not updating and could they please delete the ARP entry for that secondary IP, that’s what.  That’s what I would have done right away myself if I had had that kind of access.  On *ix devices there is usually a command like arp -d ip_address to delete a specific ARP entry. 

This also explains why another device on that segment could see that secondary IP while at the same time the router couldn’t.  The other device obviously had a more well-behaved ARP time-out mechanism.  Or perhaps it  didn’t but it had had no ARP entry for that secondary IP until after the server switch?  And of course the way modern switches work the traffic is all directed and carved up.  So the communication between those two devices, which would have contained nice and uptodate MAC/IP entries was completely segregated and none of it would have been seen by the router, so in that sense wasn’t helping any.  And what was the other way to send packets from a specific IP?  dig.  I use dig constantly in my capacity as a DNS admin, so I was aware it also allows you to specify your source IP address (dig -b).  Another way that most people would have thought of?  nmap.  I haven’t really checked, but I’m willing to bet nmap could easily also have been used.  But that’s kinf of a “nasty” utility and actually isn’t normally available on self-respecting servers.  It certainly wasn’t on this one.  sendmail MTA could also be used for this same purpose (setting the source IP), but that’s a pain in the rear to set up.  As I say there are probably lots of other utilities that do this.  nc or netcat, depending on your version of Linux, may also be promising.  The aspiring programmers could write a simple PERL (or pick your language) client to do the same thing, etc.   I now see that even telnet allows you to specify your source IP with the -b switch.  So it seems to be a fairly common feature – though not universal, just try to find it on an FTP client – in most networking utilities.

An IT person benefits from having lots of tools which accomplish the same things in different ways.

More Details As Time Permits