Hi Christian, > When Windows connects, strongSwan gives it the wrong policy and hence > Windows 10 reports a*policy match error* > > May 1 21:53:12 08[CFG] *received proposals*: > IKE:3DES_CBC/HMAC_SHA1_96/PRF_HMAC_SHA1/MODP_1024, > IKE:3DES_CBC/HMAC_SHA2_256_128/PRF_HMAC_SHA2_256/MODP_1024, > IKE:3DES_CBC/HMAC_SHA2_384_192/PRF_HMAC_SHA2_384/MODP_1024, > IKE:AES_CBC_128/HMAC_SHA1_96/PRF_HMAC_SHA1/MODP_1024, > IKE:AES_CBC_128/HMAC_SHA2_256_128/PRF_HMAC_SHA2_256/MODP_1024, > IKE:AES_CBC_128/HMAC_SHA2_384_192/PRF_HMAC_SHA2_384/MODP_1024, > IKE:AES_CBC_192/HMAC_SHA1_96/PRF_HMAC_SHA1/MODP_1024, > IKE:AES_CBC_192/HMAC_SHA2_256_128/PRF_HMAC_SHA2_256/MODP_1024, > IKE:AES_CBC_192/HMAC_SHA2_384_192/PRF_HMAC_SHA2_384/MODP_1024, > IKE:AES_CBC_256/HMAC_SHA1_96/PRF_HMAC_SHA1/MODP_1024, > IKE:AES_CBC_256/HMAC_SHA2_256_128/PRF_HMAC_SHA2_256/MODP_1024, > IKE:AES_CBC_256/HMAC_SHA2_384_192/PRF_HMAC_SHA2_384/MODP_1024, > IKE:AES_GCM_16_128/HMAC_SHA1_96/PRF_HMAC_SHA1/MODP_1024, > IKE:AES_GCM_16_128/HMAC_SHA2_256_128/PRF_HMAC_SHA2_256/MODP_1024, > IKE:AES_GCM_16_128/HMAC_SHA2_384_192/PRF_HMAC_SHA2_384/MODP_1024, > IKE:AES_GCM_16_256/HMAC_SHA1_96/PRF_HMAC_SHA1/MODP_1024, > IKE:AES_GCM_16_256/HMAC_SHA2_256_128/PRF_HMAC_SHA2_256/MODP_1024, > IKE:AES_GCM_16_256/HMAC_SHA2_384_192/PRF_HMAC_SHA2_384/MODP_1024 > May 1 21:53:12 08[CFG] *configured proposals*: > IKE:AES_GCM_16_256/AES_GCM_16_128/PRF_HMAC_SHA2_384/PRF_HMAC_SHA2_256/MODP_1024 > May 1 21:53:12 08[CFG] selected proposal: > IKE:*AES_GCM_16_128/PRF_HMAC_SHA2_256/MODP_1024* > > Expected response (I'm guessing) > *AES_GCM_16_128/HMAC_SHA2_256_128/PRF_HMAC_SHA2_256/MODP_1024 *(although > I dont know why it doesnt chose the better ciphers).
No, with AES-GCM there is no integrity algorithm (HMAC_SHA* here) needed as combined-mode ciphers like AES-GCM provide both encryption and integrity protection (see section 8 in RFC 5282 [1] and section 3.3 in RFC 7296 [2]). So the problem is that the client proposes invalid proposals and probably expects an invalid proposal back. Regards, Tobias [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5282#section-8 [2] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7296#section-3.3
