>>>>> On Mon, 5 Mar 2018 22:19:14 +0000, Shawn Rappaport said:
> Content-ID: <e5e4840fb1b84f429231b2ee5c389...@namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
> 
> On 3/5/18, 2:37 PM, "Josip Deanovic" <djosip+n...@linuxpages.net> wrote:
> 
>     Josip DeanovicOn Monday 2018-03-05 22:23:08  wrote:
>     > On Monday 2018-03-05 14:38:07 Dimitri Maziuk wrote:
>     > > On 03/05/2018 02:27 PM, Josip Deanovic wrote:
>     > > > On Monday 2018-03-05 14:16:34 Dimitri Maziuk wrote:
>     > > >> That's not an error if a security op's workstation is also a backup
>     > > >> client.
>     > > > 
>    > > > > Yes, and I would like to know if that was the case.
>    > > > 
>    > > > I tend to have a blanket iptables rule allowing local subnet traffic.
>    > > > Our security nazis live in a separate subnet so their scans get
>    > > > blocked
>    > > > by that. If I were running portscans from inside my netblock I expect
>    > > > I'd get the same log entries. That's anther other option for it being
>    > > > legit.
>    > > 
>    > > I have additional backup interfaces and completely separated backup
>    > > network where no other two backup clients can see or reach each other.
>    > > 
>    > > Where there is no additional network card available there is a VLAN.
>    > > 
>    > > But all of that is not important here.
>    > > What is important is the case where if you can reach bacula services
>    > > you could potentially break backup jobs and thus effectively produce
>    > > a bacula denial of service.
>    > > 
>    > > If I understood correctly that's what happened to Shawn.
>    > 
>    > Actually Shawn didn't say that the backup failed.
>    > He just said that when he manually started the backup job the next day,
>    > it finished successfully, without errors.
>    > 
>   >  Shawn, can you confirm that both backups were successfully completed?
>   >  
> 
> Despite seeing those errors in the log, the catalog backup appears to have 
> been successful. So, yes, both the scheduled and manual backup of my catalog 
> completed successfully.  Here is what the full log looks like from March 3rd:
> 
> xbacdirector01-lv.internal.shutterfly.com-dir JobId 113: shell command: run 
> BeforeJob "/etc/bacula/make_catalog_backup.pl MyCatalog"
> xbacdirector01-lv.internal.shutterfly.com-dir JobId 113: Start Backup JobId 
> 113, Job=BackupCatalog.2018-03-03_23.10.00_10
> xbacdirector01-lv.internal.shutterfly.com-dir JobId 113: Error: getmsg.c:209 
> Malformed message: bsock.c:819 Packet size=121984032 too big from 
> "client:10.32.12.18:9103". Maximum permitted 1000000. Terminating connection.
> xbacdirector01-lv.internal.shutterfly.com-dir JobId 113: Error: getmsg.c:209 
> Malformed message: bsock.c:819 Packet size=138759248 too big from 
> "client:10.32.12.18:9103". Maximum permitted 1000000. Terminating connection.
> xbacdirector01-lv.internal.shutterfly.com-dir JobId 113: Error: getmsg.c:209 
> Malformed message: bsock.c:819 Packet size=50331667 too big from 
> "client:10.32.12.18:9103". Maximum permitted 1000000. Terminating connection.
> xbacdirector01-lv.internal.shutterfly.com-dir JobId 113: Using Device 
> "FileChgr1-Dev2" to write.
> xbacdirector01-lv.internal.shutterfly.com-dir JobId 113: Error: getmsg.c:209 
> Malformed message: bsock.c:819 Packet size=121984032 too big from 
> "client:10.32.12.18:9102". Maximum permitted 1000000. Terminating connection.
> xbacdirector01-lv.internal.shutterfly.com-dir JobId 113: Error: getmsg.c:209 
> Malformed message: bsock.c:819 Packet size=138759248 too big from 
> "client:10.32.12.18:9102". Maximum permitted 1000000. Terminating connection.
> xbacdirector01-lv.internal.shutterfly.com-dir JobId 113: Error: getmsg.c:209 
> Malformed message: bsock.c:819 Packet size=50331667 too big from 
> "client:10.32.12.18:9102". Maximum permitted 1000000. Terminating connection.
> xbacdirector01-lv.internal.shutterfly.com-sd JobId 113: Volume "daily-0" 
> previously written, moving to end of data.
> xbacdirector01-lv.internal.shutterfly.com-sd JobId 113: Elapsed 
> time=00:00:02, Transfer rate=11.07 M Bytes/second
> xbacdirector01-lv.internal.shutterfly.com-sd JobId 113: Sending spooled attrs 
> to the Director. Despooling 225 bytes ...
> xbacdirector01-lv.internal.shutterfly.com-dir JobId 113: Bacula 
> xbacdirector01-lv.internal.shutterfly.com-dir 9.0.6 (20Nov17):
>   Build OS:               x86_64-pc-linux-gnu redhat (Core)
>   JobId:                  113
>   Job:                    BackupCatalog.2018-03-03_23.10.00_10
>   Backup Level:           Full
>   Client:                 "xbacdirector01-lv.internal.shutterfly.com-fd" 
> 9.0.6 (20Nov17) x86_64-pc-linux-gnu,redhat,(Core)
>   FileSet:                "Catalog" 2018-02-08 23:10:00
>   Pool:                   "Daily" (From Job resource)
>   Catalog:                "MyCatalog" (From Client resource)
>   Storage:                "File1" (From Pool resource)
>   Scheduled time:         03-Mar-2018 23:10:00
>   Start time:             03-Mar-2018 23:10:03
>   End time:               03-Mar-2018 23:10:05
>   Elapsed time:           2 secs
>   Priority:               11
>   FD Files Written:       1
>   SD Files Written:       1
>   FD Bytes Written:       22,147,958 (22.14 MB)
>   SD Bytes Written:       22,148,071 (22.14 MB)
>   Rate:                   11074.0 KB/s
>   Software Compression:   70.7% 3.4:1
>   Comm Line Compression:  None
>   Snapshot/VSS:           no
>   Encryption:             no
>   Accurate:               no
>   Volume name(s):         daily-0
>   Volume Session Id:      3
>   Volume Session Time:    1520028953
>   Last Volume Bytes:      44,350,450 (44.35 MB)
>   Non-fatal FD errors:    6
>   SD Errors:              0
>   FD termination status:  OK
>   SD termination status:  OK
>   Termination:            Backup OK -- with warnings

These are different messages from those you reported originally (which all
mentioned client:10.32.12.18:9101 with time 12:27 and 12:28).  They are almost
certainly caused by a port scan though, so nothing to worry about.

Nevertheless, I would report these latest messages as a bug, because it looks
like Bacula has erroneously associated them with JobId 113, which possibly
caused the spurious "Backup OK -- with warnings".  It looks like a double
error: something has detected the packet size problems and reported this back
to getmsg.c in a malformed way.

__Martin

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users

Reply via email to