or add the registry key <http://www.naimuri.com/>
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\Rasman\Parameters [DWORD 32bit] NegotiateDH2048_AES256 1 https://wiki.strongswan.org/projects/strongswan/wiki/Windows7#Bugs-amp-Features <https://wiki.strongswan.org/projects/strongswan/wiki/Windows7#Bugs-amp-Features> > On 3 May 2018, at 14:39, Jafar A-Gharaibeh <[email protected]> wrote: > > The responder is configured to accept DH group modp2048 and up. Windows can > only do modp1024 by default as you can see in the received proposals. > > Append modp1024 to your strongswan ike proposals and it should work. > > Regards, > Jafar > > > On 2018-05-03 04:34, flyingrhino wrote: >> Hi fellow swan'ers, >> Can anyone point me in the right direction to understand why I get the >> message "error 13868: Policy match error" when I connect using windows >> 8.1 & p12 cert to strongswan responder (5.6.2-2~local9.1 on debian >> stretch)? >> When I connect to the same responder from a linux initiator running >> linux mint 18.3 with the cert components configured manually into >> ipsec.conf , ipsec.secrets, strongswan.conf (ipsec up CONN_NAME) - it >> works perfectly! >> Here's the log from the responder with find/replace on private fields: >> May 3 18:08:30 my_server charon: 02[NET] received packet: from >> 1.1.1.1[43473] to 2.2.2.2[500] >> May 3 18:08:30 my_server charon: 12[NET] received packet: from >> 1.1.1.1[43473] to 2.2.2.2[500] (616 bytes) >> May 3 18:08:30 my_server charon: 12[ENC] parsed IKE_SA_INIT request 0 >> [ SA KE No N(NATD_S_IP) N(NATD_D_IP) V V V V ] >> May 3 18:08:30 my_server charon: 12[CFG] looking for an ike config >> for 2.2.2.2...1.1.1.1 >> May 3 18:08:30 my_server charon: 12[CFG] candidate: 2.2.2.2...%any, prio >> 1052 >> May 3 18:08:30 my_server charon: 12[CFG] found matching ike config: >> 2.2.2.2...%any with prio 1052 >> May 3 18:08:30 my_server charon: 12[IKE] received MS NT5 ISAKMPOAKLEY >> v9 vendor ID >> May 3 18:08:30 my_server charon: 12[IKE] received MS-Negotiation >> Discovery Capable vendor ID >> May 3 18:08:30 my_server charon: 12[IKE] received Vid-Initial-Contact >> vendor ID >> May 3 18:08:30 my_server charon: 12[ENC] received unknown vendor ID: >> 01:MORE HEX HERE:00:00:02 >> May 3 18:08:30 my_server charon: 12[IKE] 1.1.1.1 is initiating an IKE_SA >> May 3 18:08:30 my_server charon: 12[IKE] IKE_SA (unnamed)[2] state >> change: CREATED => CONNECTING >> May 3 18:08:30 my_server charon: 12[CFG] selecting proposal: >> May 3 18:08:30 my_server charon: 12[CFG] no acceptable >> DIFFIE_HELLMAN_GROUP found >> May 3 18:08:30 my_server charon: 12[CFG] selecting proposal: >> May 3 18:08:30 my_server charon: 12[CFG] no acceptable >> DIFFIE_HELLMAN_GROUP found >> May 3 18:08:30 my_server charon: 12[CFG] selecting proposal: >> May 3 18:08:30 my_server charon: 12[CFG] no acceptable >> DIFFIE_HELLMAN_GROUP found >> May 3 18:08:30 my_server charon: 12[CFG] selecting proposal: >> May 3 18:08:30 my_server charon: 12[CFG] no acceptable >> DIFFIE_HELLMAN_GROUP found >> May 3 18:08:30 my_server charon: 12[CFG] selecting proposal: >> May 3 18:08:30 my_server charon: 12[CFG] no acceptable >> DIFFIE_HELLMAN_GROUP found >> May 3 18:08:30 my_server charon: 12[CFG] selecting proposal: >> May 3 18:08:30 my_server charon: 12[CFG] no acceptable >> DIFFIE_HELLMAN_GROUP found >> May 3 18:08:30 my_server charon: 12[CFG] selecting proposal: >> May 3 18:08:30 my_server charon: 12[CFG] no acceptable >> ENCRYPTION_ALGORITHM found >> May 3 18:08:30 my_server charon: 12[CFG] selecting proposal: >> May 3 18:08:30 my_server charon: 12[CFG] no acceptable >> ENCRYPTION_ALGORITHM found >> May 3 18:08:30 my_server charon: 12[CFG] selecting proposal: >> May 3 18:08:30 my_server charon: 12[CFG] no acceptable >> ENCRYPTION_ALGORITHM found >> May 3 18:08:30 my_server charon: 12[CFG] selecting proposal: >> May 3 18:08:30 my_server charon: 12[CFG] no acceptable >> ENCRYPTION_ALGORITHM found >> May 3 18:08:30 my_server charon: 12[CFG] selecting proposal: >> May 3 18:08:30 my_server charon: 12[CFG] no acceptable >> ENCRYPTION_ALGORITHM found >> May 3 18:08:30 my_server charon: 12[CFG] selecting proposal: >> May 3 18:08:30 my_server charon: 12[CFG] no acceptable >> ENCRYPTION_ALGORITHM found >> May 3 18:08:30 my_server charon: 12[CFG] received proposals: >> IKE:3DES_CBC/HMAC_SHA1_96/PRF_HMAC_SHA1/MODP_1024, >> IKE:AES_CBC_256/HMAC_SHA1_96/PRF_HMAC_SHA1/MODP_1024, >> IKE:3DES_CBC/HMAC_SHA2_256_128/PRF_HMAC_SHA2_256/MODP_1024, >> IKE:AES_CBC_256/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_256/HMAC_SHA2_384_192/PRF_HMAC_SHA2_384/MODP_1024 >> May 3 18:08:30 my_server charon: 12[CFG] configured proposals: >> IKE:AES_CBC_128/AES_CBC_192/AES_CBC_256/CAMELLIA_CBC_128/CAMELLIA_CBC_192/CAMELLIA_CBC_256/3DES_CBC/HMAC_SHA2_256_128/HMAC_SHA2_384_192/HMAC_SHA2_512_256/HMAC_SHA1_96/AES_XCBC_96/PRF_HMAC_SHA2_256/PRF_HMAC_SHA2_384/PRF_HMAC_SHA2_512/PRF_AES128_XCBC/PRF_HMAC_SHA1/CURVE_25519/ECP_256/ECP_384/ECP_521/ECP_256_BP/ECP_384_BP/ECP_512_BP/MODP_3072/MODP_4096/MODP_6144/MODP_8192/MODP_2048, >> IKE:AES_GCM_16_128/AES_GCM_16_192/AES_GCM_16_256/AES_GCM_12_128/AES_GCM_12_192/AES_GCM_12_256/AES_GCM_8_128/AES_GCM_8_192/AES_GCM_8_256/PRF_HMAC_SHA2_256/PRF_HMAC_SHA2_384/PRF_HMAC_SHA2_512/PRF_AES128_XCBC/PRF_HMAC_SHA1/CURVE_25519/ECP_256/ECP_384/ECP_521/ECP_256_BP/ECP_384_BP/ECP_512_BP/MODP_3072/MODP_4096/MODP_6144/MODP_8192/MODP_2048 >> May 3 18:08:30 my_server charon: 12[IKE] remote host is behind NAT >> May 3 18:08:30 my_server charon: 12[IKE] received proposals inacceptable >> May 3 18:08:30 my_server charon: 12[ENC] generating IKE_SA_INIT >> response 0 [ N(NO_PROP) ] >> May 3 18:08:30 my_server charon: 12[NET] sending packet: from >> 2.2.2.2[500] to 1.1.1.1[43473] (36 bytes) >> May 3 18:08:30 my_server charon: 12[IKE] IKE_SA (unnamed)[2] state >> change: CONNECTING => DESTROYING >> May 3 18:08:30 my_server charon: 02[NET] waiting for data on sockets >> May 3 18:08:30 my_server charon: 08[NET] sending packet: from >> 2.2.2.2[500] to 1.1.1.1[ >> Could it be something to do with how the client key is built - the CN, >> or san fields, or the IP addresses? >> Here's how I made the keys. Again fields have been sanitized: >> Responder >> ========= >> ipsec pki --gen --type rsa --size 4096 --outform pem > >> /etc/ipsec.d/private/my_strongswanKey.pem >> ipsec pki --self --ca --lifetime 720 --in >> /etc/ipsec.d/private/my_strongswanKey.pem --type rsa --dn "C=US, >> O=company, CN=myrootCA" --outform pem > >> /etc/ipsec.d/cacerts/my_strongswanCert.pem >> ipsec pki --gen --type rsa --size 2048 --outform pem > >> /etc/ipsec.d/private/my_vpnHostKey.pem >> ipsec pki --pub --in /etc/ipsec.d/private/my_vpnHostKey.pem --type rsa >> | ipsec pki --issue --lifetime 710 --cacert >> /etc/ipsec.d/cacerts/my_strongswanCert.pem --cakey >> /etc/ipsec.d/private/my_strongswanKey.pem --dn "C=US, O=company, >> CN=2.2.2.2" --san 2.2.2.2 --san @2.2.2.2 --san 10.10.10.10 --san >> @10.10.10.10 --san servername --flag serverAuth --flag ikeIntermediate >> --outform pem > /etc/ipsec.d/certs/my_vpnHostCert.pem >> Initiator certs >> =============== >> ipsec pki --gen --type rsa --size 2048 --outform pem > >> /etc/ipsec.d/private/my_MynameKey.pem >> ipsec pki --pub --in /etc/ipsec.d/private/my_MynameKey.pem --type rsa >> | ipsec pki --issue --lifetime 710 --cacert >> /etc/ipsec.d/cacerts/my_strongswanCert.pem --cakey >> /etc/ipsec.d/private/my_strongswanKey.pem --dn "C=US, O=company, >> [email protected]" --san [email protected] --san [email protected] >> --san [email protected] --outform pem > >> /etc/ipsec.d/certs/my_MynameCert.pem >> openssl pkcs12 -export -inkey /etc/ipsec.d/private/my_MynameKey.pem >> -in /etc/ipsec.d/certs/my_MynameCert.pem -name "my_MynameCert" >> -certfile /etc/ipsec.d/cacerts/my_strongswanCert.pem -caname >> "myrootCA" -out /etc/ipsec.d/p12/my_Myname.p12 >> Thanks.
