What i have:
I am running a freeradius server fully configured of how i need it to be. Everything works just fine right now.
What i need:
I need the radius to put the devices in a seperate vlan before authentication and to run a vulnerability scan (nessus / openvas etc) on the devices in this vlan to check for software status ( antivirus etc. )
if the device passes the test the authentication should be done normaly.
if it fails it should be put into a third ( fourth if you count the unauth-vid ) vlan.
can someone tell me if this is doable in freeradius ?
thanks in advance for your answers
Yes. But this is a very broad question and is dependent on the networking equipment being used. I'll give you an overview of how I'd design such a system.
In general, you'll have an easier time if you can use the same DHCP server/IP range for your NAC and full access VLAN. That means you don't have to signal the higher networking layers in the client that there's been a state change, you can swap out VLANs behind the scenes to change what they can access.
You'd set up a database with an entry for each client. This doesn't have to be pre-populated, it could be populated during the first auth attempt. Part of each client entry would be a status field detailing when they last completed NAC.
You'd also need an accounting database, to store information about where each client is connected to the network.
If the client had never completed NAC checks before, you'd assign the client to the NAC VLAN, and signal your NAC processes to start interrogating it.
FreeRADIUS can act as both a RADIUS and DHCPv4 server, so you'd probably do signal the NAC process from the DHCPv4 side because then you'd know what IP the client received.
Binding the RADIUS and DHCPv4 sides can be done in a couple of ways. The most obvious is MAC, another common way is NAS/Port ID using the accounting table.
Once the NAC checks had completed, you'd have the NAC process write out a receipt in detail file format, and have that read back in by a detail file listener (there are examples of this in sites-available/ in the 'decoupled-accounting' virtual server files). When reading those entries back in, you'd change the state in the database, and send a CoA packet to the switch using information from the accounting database to identify the client. This would flip the VLAN and allow them to the standard set of networking resources.
I know this is very high level, documenting it properly would probably exceed StackOverflow's character limit. If you need more help with this, I suggest you research what I've described above and then start asking the RADIUS related questions on the FreeRADIUS user's mailing list https://freeradius.org/support/.
I've recently read a lot about best practices with JMS, Spring (and TIBCO EMS) around connections, sessions, consumers & producers
When working within the Spring world, the prevailing wisdom seems to be
for consuming/incoming flows - to use an AbstractMessageListenerContainer with a number of consumers/threads.
for producing/publishing flows - to use a CachingConnectionFactory underneath a JmsTemplate to maintain a single connection to the broker and then cache sessions and producers.
For producing/publishing, this is what my (largeish) server application is now doing, where previously it was creating a new connection/session/producer for every single message it was publishing (bad!) due to use of the raw connection factory under JmsTemplate. The old behaviour would sometimes lead to 1,000s of connections being created and closed on the broker in a short period of time in high peak periods and even hitting socket/file handle limits as a result.
However, when switching to this model I am having trouble understanding what the performance limitations/considerations are with the use of a single TCP connection to the broker. I understand that the JMS provider is expected to ensure it can be used in the multi-threaded way etc - but from a practical perspective
it's just a single TCP connection
the JMS provider to some degree needs to co-ordinate writes down the pipe so they don't end up an interleaved jumble, even if it has some chunking in its internal protocol
surely this involves some contention between threads/sessions using the single connection
with certain network semantics (high latency to broker? unstable throughput?) surely a single connection will not be ideal?
On the assumption that I'm somewhat on the right track
Am I off base here and misunderstanding how the underlying connections work and are shared by a JMS provider?
is any contention a problem mitigated by having more connections or does it just move the contention to the broker?
Does anyone have any practical experience of hitting such a limit they could share? Either with particular message or network throughput, or even caused by # of threads/sessions sharing a connection in parallel
Should one be concerned in a single-connection scenario about sessions that write very large messages blocking other sessions that write small messages?
Would appreciate any thoughts or pointers to more reading on the subject or experience even with other brokers.
When thinking about the bottleneck, keep in mind two facts:
TCP is a streaming protocol, almost all JMS providers use a TCP based protocol
lots of the actions from TIBCO EMS client to EMS server are in the form of request/reply. For example, when you publish a message / acknowledge a receive message / commit a transactional session, what's happening under the hood is that some TCP packets are sent out from client and the server will respond with some packets as well. Because of the nature of TCP streaming, those actions have to be serialised if they are initiated from the same connection -- otherwise say if from one thread you publish a message and in the exact same time from another thread you commit a session, the packets will be mixed on the wire and there is no way server can interpret the right message from the packets. [ Note: the synchronisation is done from the EMS client library level, hence user can feel free to share one connection with multiple threads/sessions/consumers/producers ]
My own experience is multiple connections always output perform single connection. In a lossy network situation, it is definitely a must to use multiple connections. Under best network condition, with multiple connections, a single client can nearly saturate the network bandwidth between client and server.
That said, it really depends on what is your clients' performance requirement, a single connection under good network can already provides good enough performance.
Even if you use one connection and 100 sessions it means finally you
are using 100threads, it is same as using 10connections* 10 sessions =
100threads.
You are good until you reach your system resource limits
I need to send identical information to 100's of clients over the Internet. I currently maintain a list of client connections and iterate over the list. Obviously the longer the list gets the more latency there is toward the end of the list.
I have looked at multicasting. However unless I am missing something it is only good for LAN-based communications at present. It requires routers that support multicasting and most routers do not. There is no mechanism that I can see where one requests an available multicast address to avoid broadcasting to an address already in use.
So my questions are:
1) Am I missing something and can I use multicasting to accomplish this? (have tried without success)
2) Other than multicasting, is there a short cut to sending identical packets to many recipients?
I solved the problem by multicasting between threads in the server. Every client connection results in the creation of an object. These objects are stored in a queue. Each object has its own thread and joins the multicast group. When the server multicasts a string to the client objects the delay that arose from the list iteration no longer occurs.
Every now and then there is huge latency (nearly a second). I suspect that this is a JVM thing.
If you need high performing low latency IO, you shoud try http://nodejs.org/
You may be also interested in some cache http://memcached.org/
I have one doubt regarding multicasting in linux kernel. When multicast data arrives
linux kernel checks MFC and if the matching entry is not found then kernel gives conrol message cache miss and header to the user space. My question is what happens to the data
packet? Suppose i may deliberately not want to keep the entry inside MFC but i may have some
other table which has got forwarding information and i want to use that one then what to do?
Regards,
Bhavin.
If a data packet arrives for which there is no matching MFC entry, then the data packet gets put into a queue. It will stay in that queue until either an MFC entry gets added that matches that packet or a timeout expires (10 seconds), whichever happens first. The queue itself has a limit of 10 entries, and once that limit is reached no more packets will get put onto the queue. In that case, unresolved packets will get dropped.
I don't think Linux supports having multiple MFC tables (but I could be wrong). As an alternative, you could route these multicast packets in userspace using by receiving them on a raw socket and then forwarding them out whatever interface you like. In fact many of the IPv6 multicast routing daemons used a method like this before IPv6 multicast support on Linux matured.
you can check it that if related kernel compiled multicast support using command below
grep -i "multicast" /boot/config-2.6.32-358.6.1.el6.x86_64
/UE
Are there any known methods of finding peers without using a dedicated central server?
ie: If I have peers which are disconnecting and reconnecting to the internet but getting a new IP address each time, and I want to connect to them without setting up a dedicated server to register with.
I was thinking about using peers email address to send a manifest of connected peers periodically, with some sort of timecode, negating the need for a dedicated server. This would be a fallback if none of the peers could be connected to after trying all the previously known peer addresses. But existing models of finding peers would be preferable.
There's no way around having to know at least one initial peer to discover more.
Fully P2P protocols, such as Gnutella or Gnutella2, or the simpler Overnet (made famous by Storm Worm), are based on each client having a start-up list of a few peers. These can come off a web-based automated tracker for example. The client will discover the whole network or portions of it by asking other peers for more addresses, for example when delegating a file search.
If you truly can't have any kind of a centralized resource, the best you can do is find the first peer through broadcasted messages and ultimately IP address scanning. The first approach is well-meaning but in at least 98% of cases won't yield any results. The later approach, of course, is abusing the internet, as well as illegal in most countries.
I really would rethink having some kind of a central tracker. It can be something as simple as a PHP script on a webserver (the gnutella network, today, is held up by ten-twenty such scripts, hosted by people who don't even know each other). And this sure is more lightweight than email (which, due to spam filters at the very least, would not work anyway).
In the limited case of peers within an intranet, it is possible to send a broadcast UDP message to a known port asking for peers to report back.
The BitcoinQT client uses a variety of methods to find nodes, some of them might be useful to you.
Satoshi Client Node Discovery
IRC is no longer used, but might be the most easy to implement:
As of version 0.6.x the Bitcoin client no longer uses IRC bootstrapping by default, and as of version 0.8.2 support for IRC bootstrapping has been removed completely. This documentation below is accurate for most prior versions.
In addition to learning and sharing its own address, the node learned about other node addresses via an IRC channel. See irc.cpp.
After learning its own address, a node encoded its own address into a string to be used as a nickname. Then, it randomly joined an IRC channel named between #bitcoin00 and #bitcoin99. Then it issued a WHO command. The thread read the lines as they appeared in the channel and decoded the IP addresses of other nodes in the channel. It did this in a loop, forever, until the node was shutdown.
When the client discovered an address from IRC, it set the timestamp on the address to the current time, but it used a "penalty" of 51 minutes, which means it looked like it was actually seen almost an hour earlier.
Take advantage of any existing forum where data can posted. Think secret IRC channel, embedding data in photos and posting to photo sharing sites 4chan?, any site that would allow your application to login and post data without captia logins etc.
http://chatzilla.hacksrus.com/faq/#password
Another strategy might be to embedded messages in digital currency transactions. Pick a cheap coin that's likely to hang around ... DOGE or MOON coin maybe. Build wallet functionality into your app. such that you can post micro transactions back and forth between addresses that your app controls. There would still be a miners fee, but this is only fractions of pennies. Even if they later prohibit adding metadata to transactions, you could make a transaction equivalent to your IP address in MOON, and use vanity addresses in MOON coin for your app. such that when a new node comes online it knows what to search the blockchain for -- 2daMOON%bootStr#pM3. SEND - 104.003021133 MOON IP = 104.3.21.133 not an expensive proposition.
Old question but I've been thinking about this problem myself so will ad my 2-cents. In short, a central server is not required if a node is aware of at least one valid peer. New nodes must be added to the network by any current member (e.g. invited, or node spawns another node, depending on your application).
Assuming that:
agents keep track of peers; the size of this address book and how entries are managed will depend on the nature of the system; e.g. how long peers remain connected, if peers use stable addresses
agents share peer information with other peers
at least some agents remain available for relatively long periods of time relative to frequency node connects to network to update it's address book (or nodes have stable addresses)
in addition to peer addresses, availability information is also tracked (many options here depending on your system. examples include: whether peer has a stable address, when last seen, some availability metric, content/service type information, address valid-until time if known)
new agents are initialized with at least one valid peer (doesn't have to be a central node, can be any valid node)
trust mechanisms shall be required if malicious peers are a possibility
When a peer comes online, it queries the peers in it's peer table to discover which are active and perhaps removes expired dynamic addresses. Nodes exchange peer information and may become linked themselves. This peer discovery/exchange may continue a certain number of hops or via random walk until peer list if of sufficient size and/or quality.
A few more details:
Nodes connect and share peer information with frequency related to how often node addresses change, so address book doesn't become stale and node becomes disconnected because none of it's former peers are available at their last known addresses
Nodes may need to limit the number of peers they accept, to avoid tendency towards centralization around the most stable nodes.
Nodes should be selective about the peers they keep; i.e. ones in which they are more likely to exchange data (e.g. weight based upon history)
Node links may be asymmetric or symmetric depending on the application
Three ways, off the top of my head, though you're always going to need some central server to start the connection unless you went with option 3.
Central server that maintains known list of peers, with keep-alive.
One or more central servers that maintain some common resource peers can use to discover one another, but once connected no longer need the central server as long as the peer remains connected (something like BitTorrent); can chain peered connections as well.
Port/IP scanning (strongly not recommended).
In your example, you'd still have some kind of central server where the peers would be registered; the protocol is the only difference.
To put it simply no, there is no way to do this without a central sever.
If you want to do this you simply need one or more central servers, whether by dynamic dns or not. The clients need a method to discover where they should connect to, and the only truly sensible way to do this is with your own server, in the simplest scenario it only needs to send an IP address in response.
Virtual severs can be had for around $15/month, which IMO is considerably cheaper than trying to use or abuse someone else's bandwidth.
[Edit].
To put it simply, there is another way, as follows.
Upon reflection I think what I'd do is to designate a set of peers as cluster controllers and use a dynamic DNS service to allow other peers to discover the cluster controllers.
Choose a dynamic DNS provider I'll call it myc.ath.cx (I Use http://www.dyndns.com/).
Each peer has to be capable of becoming a cluster controller. A cluster controller will contain a list of all the other peers connected.
When a peer is started it looks up myc.ath.cx and attempts to connect. If connection cannot be made within a period, say 30 seconds, it takes over the registration of the DNS entry.
Any peer wishing to discover other peers can simply query myc.ath.cx and a list will be provided
All peers are responsible for periodically downloading the list of peers, in case they need to cluster controller.
The cluster controller will periodically query the DNS entry - if has changed from it's IP address then it knows that it is no longer the cluster controller - so it will contact the cluster controller that currently has the DNS entry and provide it's list of known hosts.
The cluster controller will periodically contact hosts on the list to ensure that they are still valid.
Your method of sending email does use a dedicated server, though; the peer's email server, to be precise.
Roughly, I don't think it's possible without using some sort of dedicated storage or server (which the email approach does, albeit obliquely) UNLESS you are able to characterize the connectivity to the internet that your peers are using.
Basically, if you have a set of X number of peers, that connect for Y amount of time, and they are then off the grid for Z amount of time... essentially, you can construct a probability equation about how likely it is that the set of peers that you last contacted is still available; where that probability approaches 1 (for a given set of X, Y, and Z above), you can most likely sustain a peer-to-peer network without using storage.
Possibly more in the spirit; instead of having a "dedicated central server", use simple online free service to specify a peer list. Set up a yahoo group, or something like that; clients can automatically look it up and get a peer address from which to query a set of peers; the client can be coded with the authentication to post to the group, and can post periodically its IP address so that others can request the set of known active peers.
If you want to get really tricky, you can start using basically steganographic methods to hide peer location information. I.e. get a google search for "blah"; find the first site listed in the results that has an unprotected (no CAPTCHA) message board; find the third (or whatever) post that starts with "Indubitably" (or whatever), and find the header of the first message there, and there's the IP address of a peer. If that doesn't work, go down the list of search terms to the next one.
But that's sneaky. :-)
Could you re-use an existing dedicated server for the purpose?
I am thinking in particular of registering each of the peers with a Dynamic DNS, but if you were willing to get a bit uglier, sharing access to a known Hotmail account or Google Doc or the like.
You can either use a central directory or some sort of broadcast protocol for service discovery. Assuming that you could get them indexed by Google, you could conceive of a system whereby each peer runs a web site with some unique, rare words contained on a specific page. You could then use Google search results based on these words to identify potential peers. This would essentially be a (noisy and slow) internet broadcast.
If the page structure was a well known pattern or contained identifiable connection information for that peer, it would be easy to distinguish them in the search results. Using such a public directory leaves you open to compromised nodes in the network that is formed, but this is pretty much true of any P2P network absent some security mechanism.
Getting the web sites crawled and highly ranked by Google (or some other search engine) for your particular arcane set of search terms would be the trick. I can think of a couple of ways, but they aren't ones that I would use. For a legitimate service, I'd rather spend the money or find a free web site that could function as a directory.
What about another P2P system built specifically to track online peers of other P2P systems?
Then we reduce the problem of finding peers for any new P2P system to simply finding peers for the 'main' P2P system, which will give you the addresses of online peers for the system you're interested in using...
This is a typical use of a distributed hash table algorithm. I'd suggest looking at something like pastry. It uses a overlay network (Application layer network) on top of other layers.
Each node has a GUID which is used to route requests across the peer network.
If you're loooking for an already established central server then see the metaserver entry on page here:
http://martindevans.appspot.com/
You can register peers on there and then other peers can find them. Obviously this is a central server, but it requires no maintenance on your part.