Ethical Hacking Learn to find vulnerabilities before the bad guys do! Gain real world hands on hacking experience in our state of the art hacking lab. Course designed and taught by expert instructors with years of penetration testing experience. 12 student maximum in every class. Certification attempt included in every package. | Computer Forensics Training at InfoSec Institute Gain the in-demand skills of a certified computer examiner, learn to recover trace data left behind by fraud, theft, and cybercrime perpetrators. Discover the source of computer crime and abuse at your organization so that it never happens again. All of our class sizes are guaranteed to be 12 students or less to facilitate one-on-one interaction with one of our expert instructors. |

| Subject: | Re: PortFast Question |
|---|---|
| Date: | Mon, 27 Sep 2004 17:03:09 -0400 |
Josh Sukol wrote:
I am running a small network using four Cisco Catalyst 2950 switches. I am in the process of configuring a new software package that usesThe only potential security problems are:
some proprietary hardware that connects to the network via Ethernet. When plugged into the network the device would connect for a minute or
two and than connectivity would drop (i.e. ping would fail, and the
light on the switch would turn from green to amber) This pattern
continued for as long as the device was plugged into the network. The
cabling was checked and tested with other equipment and there were no
other problems.
After trying several other things I eventually started changing the ethernet port settings on the switch itself and found that by enabling portfast the device functioned fine. I have found very little information about port fast security issues. I was able to find and did read up on PortFast BPDU guard and potential DoS using malformed packets. Are there any other security issues that effect me enabling Portfast on specific ports that connect back to a single device? Are there any other ways to solve this problem that might allow me to sidestep this potential security issues all together?
2. Implementation flaws (usually DoS which you noted above already).
- Slightly Off Topic - If anyone knows why this behavior occurs and why enabling portfastOk, so what PortFast the wonder Cisco (TM) technology does is bypass SpanningTree (the nifty Layer 2 stuff that blocks loops in your network but still allows redundant connections (and when the active links goes down it switches on the blocked one if applicable, keeping things flowing on your network, even though part of it failed. So it protects against idiots who would create loops and uses your useful redundancies effectively.) normal mode of blocking, learning and then forwarding (for a host (or even, though it ain't recommended! a hub or switch of only hosts that is never going to get plugged in twice. Better to not enable portfast anytime you see multiple MACS from a port unless you know A>they're all from one machine B> you have absolute confidence/control of that hub or switch and will never run the risk of a loop) device). Essentially hosts devices PCs, printers, alien doodads with an ethernet jack, whatever like to forward their packets. Having 30 seconds or so where the packets are being blocked and MAC addresses learned and such is not useful. PortFast spares you that (obviously, the switch still sees the packets and learns the MAC address but without the safety first blocking of a potential loop). It's a good thing. Do it on all your host ports.
fixes the connectivity issue I would be very interested to a hear an
explanation.
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Something new in my inbox, Rob Hughes |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | RE: WuFTP server with Iptables., Mark Johnston |
| Previous by Thread: | PortFast Question, Josh Sukol |
| Next by Thread: | RE: PortFast Question, Stephen W. Corey - 5535 |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |