OK, I've tried a simpler PSK for the moment and I get past that bit.
Now I get a no proposal chosen and I can't find a way out. Leaving them
empty does not work and I can't find a combination which does:
This is with:
ike=aes256-sha2_256;modp2048
phase2alg=aes_gcm256-null,aes256-sha2_512,aes256-sha2_256
sha2-truncbug=yes
Apr 28 19:36:38 server pluto[2040]: packet from 85.255.235.101:48789:
test IKE proposals for initial responder:
1:IKE:ENCR=AES_CBC_256;PRF=HMAC_SHA2_256;INTEG=HMAC_SHA2_256_128;DH=MODP2048
Apr 28 19:36:38 server pluto[2040]: packet from 85.255.235.101:48789:
proposal
1:IKE:ENCR=AES_CBC_256;PRF=HMAC_SHA2_256;INTEG=HMAC_SHA2_256_128;DH=MODP2048
chosen from:
1:IKE:ENCR=AES_CBC_256;ENCR=AES_CBC_128;INTEG=HMAC_SHA2_512_256;INTEG=HMAC_SHA2_384_192;INTEG=HMAC_SHA2_256_128;INTEG=HMAC_SHA1_96;PRF=HMAC_SHA2_512;PRF=HMAC_SHA2_384;PRF=HMAC_SHA2_256;PRF=HMAC_SHA1;DH=DH24;DH=ECP_384;DH=ECP_256;DH=MODP2048;DH=MODP1536[first-match]
2:IKE:ENCR=AES_GCM_C_256;ENCR=AES_GCM_C_128;PRF=HMAC_SHA2_512;PRF=HMAC_SHA2_384;PRF=HMAC_SHA2_256;PRF=HMAC_SHA1;DH=DH24;DH=ECP_384;DH=ECP_256;DH=MODP2048;DH=MODP1536
Apr 28 19:36:38 server pluto[2040]: packet from 85.255.235.101:48789:
initiator guessed wrong keying material group (DH24); responding with
INVALID_KE_PAYLOAD requesting MODP2048
Apr 28 19:36:38 server pluto[2040]: packet from 85.255.235.101:48789:
sending unencrypted notification v2N_INVALID_KE_PAYLOAD to
85.255.235.101:48789
Apr 28 19:36:38 server pluto[2040]: packet from 85.255.235.101:48789:
proposal
1:IKE:ENCR=AES_CBC_256;PRF=HMAC_SHA2_256;INTEG=HMAC_SHA2_256_128;DH=MODP2048
chosen from:
1:IKE:ENCR=AES_CBC_256;ENCR=AES_CBC_128;INTEG=HMAC_SHA2_512_256;INTEG=HMAC_SHA2_384_192;INTEG=HMAC_SHA2_256_128;INTEG=HMAC_SHA1_96;PRF=HMAC_SHA2_512;PRF=HMAC_SHA2_384;PRF=HMAC_SHA2_256;PRF=HMAC_SHA1;DH=DH24;DH=ECP_384;DH=ECP_256;DH=MODP2048;DH=MODP1536[first-match]
2:IKE:ENCR=AES_GCM_C_256;ENCR=AES_GCM_C_128;PRF=HMAC_SHA2_512;PRF=HMAC_SHA2_384;PRF=HMAC_SHA2_256;PRF=HMAC_SHA1;DH=DH24;DH=ECP_384;DH=ECP_256;DH=MODP2048;DH=MODP1536
Apr 28 19:36:38 server pluto[2040]: "test"[1] 85.255.235.101 #9:
STATE_PARENT_R1: received v2I1, sent v2R1 {auth=IKEv2 cipher=aes_256
integ=sha256_128 prf=sha2_256 group=MODP2048}
Apr 28 19:36:38 server pluto[2040]: "test"[1] 85.255.235.101 #9: new NAT
mapping for #9, was 85.255.235.101:48789, now 85.255.235.101:10974
Apr 28 19:36:38 server pluto[2040]: "test"[1] 85.255.235.101 #9: IKEv2
mode peer ID is ID_FQDN: '@nick'
Apr 28 19:36:38 server pluto[2040]: | ikev2_parent_inI2outR2_tail
returned STF_FAIL with v2N_NO_PROPOSAL_CHOSEN
Apr 28 19:36:38 server pluto[2040]: "test"[1] 85.255.235.101 #9: sending
unencrypted notification v2N_NO_PROPOSAL_CHOSEN to 85.255.235.101:10974
Apr 28 19:36:39 server pluto[2040]: packet from 85.255.235.101:10974:
sending unencrypted notification v2N_INVALID_IKE_SPI to 85.255.235.101:10974
Apr 28 19:36:41 server pluto[2040]: packet from 85.255.235.101:10974:
sending unencrypted notification v2N_INVALID_IKE_SPI to 85.255.235.101:10974
Apr 28 19:36:44 server pluto[2040]: packet from 85.255.235.101:10974:
sending unencrypted notification v2N_INVALID_IKE_SPI to 85.255.235.101:10974
sha2-truncbug makes no difference. It looks like it chooses a proposal
but then says it does not.
Regards,
Nick
On 28/04/2017 18:23, Nick Howitt wrote:
Thanks. I guessed that but I copied and pasted them so I am not sure
why. I'll try again.
Regards,
Nick
On 28/04/2017 18:09, Paul Wouters wrote:
It means your PSK's don't match.
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 28, 2017, at 13:06, Nick Howitt<[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Paul,
I've trying to set up a very basic IKEv2+PSK conn from Android 5.0.1 to
libreswan 3.20 but it is giving errors:
conn test
type=tunnel
authby=secret
auto=add
left=82.19.158.192
leftsourceip=172.17.2.1
leftsubnet=172.17.2.0/24
right=%any
rightid=@nick
salifetime=1h
ikelifetime=8h
ikev2=insist
dpdaction=clear
dpdtimeout=120
dpddelay=30
rekey=no
and:
Apr 28 17:58:13 server pluto[3953]: packet from 85.255.235.101:36533: test IKE
proposals for initial responder:
1:IKE:ENCR=AES_GCM_C_256;PRF=HMAC_SHA2_512,HMAC_SHA2_256,HMAC_SHA1;INTEG=NONE;DH=MODP2048,MODP3072,MODP4096,MODP8192
2:IKE:ENCR=AES_GCM_C_128;PRF=HMAC_SHA2_512,HMAC_SHA2_256,HMAC_SHA1;INTEG=NONE;DH=MODP2048,MODP3072,MODP4096,MODP8192
3:IKE:ENCR=AES_CBC_256;PRF=HMAC_SHA2_512,HMAC_SHA2_256,HMAC_SHA1;INTEG=HMAC_SHA2_512_256,HMAC_SHA2_256_128,HMAC_SHA1_96;DH=MODP2048,MODP3072,MODP1536
4:IKE:ENCR=AES_CBC_128;PRF=HMAC_SHA2_512,HMAC_SHA2_256,HMAC_SHA1;INTEG=HMAC_SHA2_512_256,HMAC_SHA2_256_128,HMAC_SHA1_96;DH=MODP2048,MODP3072,MODP1536
(default)
Apr 28 17:58:13 server pluto[3953]: packet from 85.255.235.101:36533: proposal
2:IKE:ENCR=AES_GCM_C_256;PRF=HMAC_SHA2_512;DH=MODP2048 chosen from:
1:IKE:ENCR=AES_CBC_256;ENCR=AES_CBC_128;INTEG=HMAC_SHA2_512_256;INTEG=HMAC_SHA2_384_192;INTEG=HMAC_SHA2_256_128;INTEG=HMAC_SHA1_96;PRF=HMAC_SHA2_512;PRF=HMAC_SHA2_384;PRF=HMAC_SHA2_256;PRF=HMAC_SHA1;DH=DH24;DH=ECP_384;DH=ECP_256;DH=MODP2048;DH=MODP1536[first-match]
2:IKE:ENCR=AES_GCM_C_256;ENCR=AES_GCM_C_128;PRF=HMAC_SHA2_512;PRF=HMAC_SHA2_384;PRF=HMAC_SHA2_256;PRF=HMAC_SHA1;DH=DH24;DH=ECP_384;DH=ECP_256;DH=MODP2048;DH=MODP1536[better-match]
Apr 28 17:58:13 server pluto[3953]: packet from 85.255.235.101:36533: initiator
guessed wrong keying material group (DH24); responding with INVALID_KE_PAYLOAD
requesting MODP2048
Apr 28 17:58:13 server pluto[3953]: packet from 85.255.235.101:36533: sending
unencrypted notification v2N_INVALID_KE_PAYLOAD to 85.255.235.101:36533
Apr 28 17:58:14 server pluto[3953]: packet from 85.255.235.101:36533: proposal
2:IKE:ENCR=AES_GCM_C_256;PRF=HMAC_SHA2_512;DH=MODP2048 chosen from:
1:IKE:ENCR=AES_CBC_256;ENCR=AES_CBC_128;INTEG=HMAC_SHA2_512_256;INTEG=HMAC_SHA2_384_192;INTEG=HMAC_SHA2_256_128;INTEG=HMAC_SHA1_96;PRF=HMAC_SHA2_512;PRF=HMAC_SHA2_384;PRF=HMAC_SHA2_256;PRF=HMAC_SHA1;DH=DH24;DH=ECP_384;DH=ECP_256;DH=MODP2048;DH=MODP1536[first-match]
2:IKE:ENCR=AES_GCM_C_256;ENCR=AES_GCM_C_128;PRF=HMAC_SHA2_512;PRF=HMAC_SHA2_384;PRF=HMAC_SHA2_256;PRF=HMAC_SHA1;DH=DH24;DH=ECP_384;DH=ECP_256;DH=MODP2048;DH=MODP1536[better-match]
Apr 28 17:58:14 server pluto[3953]: "test"[4] 85.255.235.101 #455:
STATE_PARENT_R1: received v2I1, sent v2R1 {auth=IKEv2 cipher=aes_gcm_16_256 integ=n/a
prf=sha2_512 group=MODP2048}
Apr 28 17:58:14 server pluto[3953]: "test"[4] 85.255.235.101 #455: new NAT
mapping for #455, was 85.255.235.101:36533, now 85.255.235.101:54219
Apr 28 17:58:14 server pluto[3953]: "test"[4] 85.255.235.101 #455: IKEv2 mode
peer ID is ID_FQDN: '@nick'
Apr 28 17:58:14 server pluto[3953]: "test"[4] 85.255.235.101 #455: AUTH
mismatch: Received AUTH != computed AUTH
Apr 28 17:58:14 server pluto[3953]: "test"[4] 85.255.235.101 #455: PSK
Authentication failed: AUTH mismatch!
Apr 28 17:58:14 server pluto[3953]: "test"[4] 85.255.235.101 #455: sending
unencrypted notification v2N_AUTHENTICATION_FAILED to 85.255.235.101:54219
Apr 28 17:58:14 server pluto[3953]: | ikev2_parent_inI2outR2_tail returned
STF_FATAL
Apr 28 17:58:14 server pluto[3953]: "test"[4] 85.255.235.101 #455: deleting
state (STATE_PARENT_R1)
Apr 28 17:58:14 server pluto[3953]: "test"[4] 85.255.235.101: deleting connection
"test"[4] 85.255.235.101 instance with peer 85.255.235.101 {isakmp=#0/ipsec=#0}
Apr 28 17:58:15 server pluto[3953]: packet from 85.255.235.101:54219: sending
unencrypted notification v2N_INVALID_IKE_SPI to 85.255.235.101:54219
Apr 28 17:58:17 server pluto[3953]: packet from 85.255.235.101:54219: sending
unencrypted notification v2N_INVALID_IKE_SPI to 85.255.235.101:54219
Apr 28 17:58:20 server pluto[3953]: packet from 85.255.235.101:54219: sending
unencrypted notification v2N_INVALID_IKE_SPI to 85.255.235.101:54219
Apr 28 17:58:27 server pluto[3953]: packet from 85.255.235.101:54219: sending
unencrypted notification v2N_INVALID_IKE_SPI to 85.255.235.101:54219
Apr 28 17:58:37 server pluto[3953]: packet from 85.255.235.101:54219: sending
unencrypted notification v2N_INVALID_IKE_SPI to 85.255.235.101:54219
Apr 28 17:58:56 server pluto[3953]: packet from 85.255.235.101:54219: sending
unencrypted notification v2N_INVALID_IKE_SPI to 85.255.235.101:54219
It looks like it has agreed a proposal but I've no idea about the AUTH
mismatch. I know I have not configured an addresspool. Is it necessary and
causing this issue or is there something else going on?
Regards,
Nick
_______________________________________________
Swan mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.libreswan.org/mailman/listinfo/swan
_______________________________________________
Swan mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.libreswan.org/mailman/listinfo/swan
_______________________________________________
Swan mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.libreswan.org/mailman/listinfo/swan
