Great Circle Associates Firewalls
(November 1996)
 

Indexed By Date: [Previous] [Next] Indexed By Thread: [Previous] [Next]

Subject: Re: Re[2]: Incoming TCP Packet with Port 80 - More info
From: uhaas @ tsg-usa . com
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 19:21:33 -0500
To: firewalls @ greatcircle . com




Anton may be right, but ...

This made me ask myself another question. Are cookie requests started be
the http server attempting a connection to the machine on the other side of
the firewall (ie a new TCP sessions) or is it imbedded in the TCP/ACK of
your http [port 80] packet? Leading me to ...

Can cookies be blocked be a firewall? I most certaintly would LOVE to do
this.

Urban


                                                                             
                                                                             
                                                                             


              After posting yesterday, I have received several replies and
              have done some more investigation.

              Several people have suggested that this could be caused by
              cookies....Based on my understanding of client and server
              side cookies I disagree.  Cookies are just special data or
              additional URL info passed in a normal HTTP request/response.
              The problem I see seems to be initiated after the firewall
              has destroyed the user's connection....Like the server is
              trying to re-establish the old connection.  I know of lots of
              sites with cookies that have never given me this problem.


              Here's what I am beginning to think the problem actually is.

              This problem is sometimes difficult to reproduce at will, but
              I think it is caused by the proxy session timeouts. Proxies
              have session establish timeouts [Sidewinder defaults to
              30sec, unsure of others] that destroy a connection attempt
              after a certain period.  What I think is happening is that
              sometimes a site is _very_ slow to respond to a request [more
              than 30sec in my case], and the firewall destroys the
              connection pathway after the proxy times out.  When the
              server is finally able to send the reply, the firewall logs
              it as a failed attempt on an unauthorized dest port [your
              original source port from the F/W] with an HTTP source port
              from the server [your original dest port].

              Here's one way to test this [your mileage may vary, and your
              test candidate may suffer for a bit]:

              -With Netscape [others would prob. work well also] pick a
              site outside your proxy that already seems somewhat slow/busy
              [www.aol.com comes to mind].
              -After loading the URL, hold down on <CTRL> <R> (reload) for
              about 30 seconds.  This will make gobs of requests and should
              make the server really busy.
              -Netscape should show the message "connect: server xx.xx.com
              contacted, waiting for reply" for at least 45secs.....wait a few
              minutes [depends on the server] and take a look at your logs.
              If you didn't crash the server with this load, then you
              should see an entry in your logs for a failed connection from
              your test host.


              I guess this problem could be reduced by increasing the proxy
              timeouts
              to several minutes.....but what sort of risk does this pose?


              Anton Rager
              arager @
 McGraw-Hill .
 com



------------------------------------------------------------
Urban A. Haas
Open Systems and Network Consulting
Total Solutions Group
Phone: (800) 423-8741 Ext. 133; Fax: (612) 831-0509
Internet: uhaas @
 tsg-usa .
 com -or- mailto:uhaas @
 tsg-usa .
 com
------------------------------------------------------------



Indexed By Date Previous: Re: NCSA certification [ever find a problem? LONG]
From: CMIS 370-5161 Student 06 <cm370a06 @ nova . umuc . edu>
Next: Re: ActiveX and RISKS
From: Doug Wellington <doug @ sun1paztcn . wr . usgs . gov>
Indexed By Thread Previous: Re: Re[2]: Incoming TCP Packet with Port 80 - More info
From: Sameer R Manek <manek @ challenger . atc . fhda . edu>
Next: configure gated for vlsm
From: Ming Lu <mlu @ hq . si . net>

Google
 
Search Internet Search www.greatcircle.com