Hi

(I hope this is an appropriate forum to ask this - if not, please direct
me elsewhere),

We have a situation where a customer's link is getting flooded by
traffic from random src, Cisco router logs as follows:

Aug 24 13:09:10: %SEC-6-IPACCESSLOGP: list 121 permitted tcp
202.1.53.2(0) (Serial0 *HDLC*) -> x.y.z.92(0), 1 packet
Aug 24 13:09:12: %SEC-6-IPACCESSLOGP: list 121 permitted tcp
202.1.55.6(0) (Serial0 *HDLC*) -> x.y.z.93(0), 9 packets
Aug 24 13:09:15: %SEC-6-IPACCESSLOGP: list 121 permitted tcp
152.91.14.26(0) (Serial0 *HDLC*) -> x.y.z.93(0), 15 packets
Aug 24 13:09:16: %SEC-6-IPACCESSLOGP: list 121 permitted tcp
209.185.128.140(0)(Serial0 *HDLC*) -> x.y.z.92(0), 1 packet
Aug 24 13:09:20: %SEC-6-IPACCESSLOGP: list 121 permitted tcp
203.12.45.1(0) (Serial0 *HDLC*) -> x.y.z.93(0), 1 packet
Aug 24 13:09:23: %SEC-6-IPACCESSLOGP: list 121 permitted tcp
202.1.53.2(0) (Serial0 *HDLC*) -> x.y.z.93(0), 1 packet
Aug 24 13:09:24: %SEC-6-IPACCESSLOGP: list 121 permitted tcp
208.171.50.94(0) (Serial0 *HDLC*) -> x.y.z.92(0), 7 packets
Aug 24 13:09:28: %SEC-6-IPACCESSLOGP: list 121 permitted udp
209.185.188.39(0) (Serial0 *HDLC*) -> x.y.z.92(0), 1 packet
Aug 24 13:09:31: %SEC-6-IPACCESSLOGP: list 121 permitted udp
216.32.65.105(0) (Serial0 *HDLC*) -> x.y.z.92(0), 1 packet
Aug 24 13:09:33: %SEC-6-IPACCESSLOGDP: list 121 permitted icmp
202.139.63.137 (Serial0 *HDLC*) -> x.y.z.92 (0/0), 14 packets
Aug 24 13:09:33: %SEC-6-IPACCESSLOGP: list 121 permitted udp
204.178.123.193(0)(Serial0 *HDLC*) -> x.y.z.92(0), 1 packet
Aug 24 13:09:39: %SEC-6-IPACCESSLOGP: list 121 permitted tcp
61.136.89.56(0) (Serial0 *HDLC*) -> x.y.z.94(0), 58 packets
Aug 24 13:09:40: %SEC-6-IPACCESSLOGP: list 121 permitted tcp
202.1.53.2(0) (Serial0 *HDLC*) -> x.y.z.92(0), 12 packets
Aug 24 13:09:44: %SEC-6-IPACCESSLOGP: list 121 permitted tcp
202.1.53.2(0) (Serial0 *HDLC*) -> x.y.z.93(0), 1 packet
Aug 24 13:09:45: %SEC-6-IPACCESSLOGP: list 121 permitted udp
208.211.225.10(0) (Serial0 *HDLC*) -> x.y.z.92(0), 1 packet

Traffic is also flooding outwards, logs as follows:

Aug 23 14:17:50: %SEC-6-IPACCESSLOGP: list 133 permitted tcp x.y.z.92(0)
(Ethernet0 0050.54fe.f685) -> 198.3.103.213(0), 1 packet
Aug 23 14:17:51: %SEC-6-IPACCESSLOGP: list 133 permitted udp x.y.z.92(0)
(Ethernet0 0050.54fe.f685) -> 192.36.148.17(0), 1 packet
Aug 23 14:17:52: %SEC-6-IPACCESSLOGP: list 133 permitted tcp x.y.z.92(0)
(Ethernet0 0050.54fe.f685) -> 130.230.6.85(0), 6 packets
Aug 23 14:17:53: %SEC-6-IPACCESSLOGP: list 133 permitted tcp x.y.z.92(0)
(Ethernet0 0050.54fe.f685) -> 137.43.2.9(0), 1 packet
Aug 23 14:17:54: %SEC-6-IPACCESSLOGP: list 133 permitted tcp x.y.z.92(0)
(Ethernet0 0050.54fe.f685) -> 199.239.1.238(0), 1 packet
Aug 23 14:17:55: %SEC-6-IPACCESSLOGP: list 133 permitted tcp x.y.z.92(0)
(Ethernet0 0050.54fe.f685) -> 212.126.144.55(0), 1 packet
Aug 23 14:17:57: %SEC-6-IPACCESSLOGP: list 133 permitted tcp x.y.z.92(0)
(Ethernet0 0050.54fe.f685) -> 216.254.6.165(0), 1 packet
Aug 23 14:17:58: %SEC-6-IPACCESSLOGP: list 133 permitted tcp x.y.z.92(0)
(Ethernet0 0050.54fe.f685) -> 213.25.50.5(0), 1 packet
Aug 23 14:17:59: %SEC-6-IPACCESSLOGP: list 133 permitted tcp x.y.z.92(0)
(Ethernet0 0050.54fe.f685) -> 212.126.144.55(0), 1 packet

Logs were generated by creating an access list with "permit ip any any
log-input" on their edge router (DMZ).
x.y.z.92 is the NAT address on their PIX firewall  -  x.y.z.93 is their
mail server (MS Exchange 5).
Traffic seems to coming and going from port 0.

I've searched the archives and found some info regarding port 0 but am
not too sure if it applies in this case. I'd appreciate any
thoughts/suggestions on how to deal with this ( **Please be gentle**)

FYI, bandwidth around here is a premium (64K Sync is the max. one can
get from the monopoly telco). Everyone goes through the one Internet
gateway (also owned by the telco) who do not have any skills onshore -
all based overseas so I don't think asking them to apply any sort of
filtering is going to help.

Thanks,

Warwick

-
[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]

Reply via email to