Guest User!

You are not Sophos Staff.

Thread Info
  • State Suggested Answer
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 8 replies
  • Answers 1 answer
  • Subscribers 6 subscribers
  • Views 16251 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Suggested
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Please can someone show me how can I resolve this log issue

Ohis

2018-01-08 19:34:50 14[DMN] [GARNER-LOGGING] (child_alert) ALERT: received IKE message with invalid SPI (E481A30) from other side
2018-01-08 19:34:50 06[IKE] <Appzone_FS-1|812> sending retransmit 4 of request message ID 0, seq 1
2018-01-08 19:34:50 06[APP] <Appzone_FS-1|812> [COP-UPDOWN][DB] (db_conn_info) hostname: 'Appzone_FS' result --> id: '2', mode: 'ntn', tunnel_type: '0', subnet_family:'0'
2018-01-08 19:34:50 06[APP] <Appzone_FS-1|812> [COP-UPDOWN][SHELL] (run_shell) '/bin/opcode set_timer_mail_updown -s nosync -t json -b '{"event":"down","conn":"Appzone_FS","local_net":"x.1x.x.x","remote_net":"x.1x.x.x","reason":"1"}'': success 0
2018-01-08 19:34:50 06[NET] <Appzone_FS-1|812> sending packet: from 1x.x.x.1[500] to 52.191.112.129[500] (240 bytes)
2018-01-08 19:34:53 14[NET] <1791> received packet: from 173.204.228.250[500] to 197.211.47.107[500] (228 bytes)
2018-01-08 19:34:53 14[ENC] <1791> parsed ID_PROT request 0 [ SA V V V V V V V ]
2018-01-08 19:34:53 14[IKE] <1791> no IKE config found for x.1x.x.x...x.1x.x.x, sending NO_PROPOSAL_CHOSEN
2018-01-08 19:34:53 14[ENC] <1791> generating INFORMATIONAL_V1 request 2497488881 [ N(NO_PROP) ]
2018-01-08 19:34:53 14[NET] <1791> sending packet: from x.1x.x.x[500] to x.1x.x.x[500] (40 bytes)
2018-01-08 19:34:57 06[DMN] [GARNER-LOGGING] (child_alert) ALERT: received IKE message with invalid SPI (E481A30) from other side
2018-01-08 19:35:10 06[DMN] [GARNER-LOGGING] (child_alert) ALERT: received IKE message with invalid SPI (E481A30) from other side



This thread was automatically locked due to age.
Parents
  • 0

    Hi Ohis,

    Please turn of the debug log.

    Please check if your Phase1 Parameters do match with the other gateway.

    And check if you entered the IP in "remote Gateway" correctly.

     

    Yours Lukas

    lna@cema

    SCA (utm+xg), SCSE, SCT

    Sophos Platinum Partner

  • 0 in reply to lna

    Thank you for the reply I've followed your recommendation to the extent of checking the parameters one by one 

    but the error still shows on the log.

    Though the Phase1 get established after cross checking the connection...but still not been able to establish my vpn connection

    between my Sophos XG firewall and Fortigate firewall

     

  • 0 in reply to Ohis

    Hi Ohis,

    then please share the IPsec Log with Debugging disabled.

     

    Yours Lukas

    lna@cema

    SCA (utm+xg), SCSE, SCT

    Sophos Platinum Partner

  • 0 in reply to lna

    Hello Ina,

    Find below the logs

     

    2018-01-09 11:40:34 16[ENC] <Appzone_FS-1|554> generating ID_PROT request 0 [ SA V V V V V ]
    2018-01-09 11:40:34 16[NET] <Appzone_FS-1|554> sending packet: from x.x.x.x[500] to x.x.x.x[500] (252 bytes)
    2018-01-09 11:40:34 17[NET] <Appzone_FS-1|554> received packet: from x.x.x.x[500] to x.x.x.x[500] (172 bytes)
    2018-01-09 11:40:34 17[ENC] <Appzone_FS-1|554> parsed ID_PROT response 0 [ SA V V V V ]
    2018-01-09 11:40:34 17[IKE] <Appzone_FS-1|554> received DPD vendor ID
    2018-01-09 11:40:34 17[ENC] <Appzone_FS-1|554> received unknown vendor ID: 82:99:03:17:57:a3:60:82:c6:a6:21:de:00:00:00:00
    2018-01-09 11:40:34 17[IKE] <Appzone_FS-1|554> received FRAGMENTATION vendor ID
    2018-01-09 11:40:34 17[IKE] <Appzone_FS-1|554> received FRAGMENTATION vendor ID
    2018-01-09 11:40:34 17[ENC] <Appzone_FS-1|554> generating ID_PROT request 0 [ KE No ]
    2018-01-09 11:40:34 17[NET] <Appzone_FS-1|554> sending packet: from x.x.x.x[500] to x.x.x.x[500] (260 bytes)
    2018-01-09 11:40:34 24[NET] <Appzone_FS-1|554> received packet: from x.x.x.x[500] to x.x.x.x[500] (244 bytes)
    2018-01-09 11:40:34 24[ENC] <Appzone_FS-1|554> parsed ID_PROT response 0 [ KE No ]
    2018-01-09 11:40:34 24[ENC] <Appzone_FS-1|554> generating ID_PROT request 0 [ ID HASH ]
    2018-01-09 11:40:34 24[NET] <Appzone_FS-1|554> sending packet: from x.x.x.x[500] to x.x.x.x[500] (92 bytes)
    2018-01-09 11:40:34 21[NET] <Appzone_FS-1|554> received packet: from x.x.x.x[500] to x.x.x.x[500] (92 bytes)
    2018-01-09 11:40:34 21[ENC] <Appzone_FS-1|554> parsed ID_PROT response 0 [ ID HASH ]
    2018-01-09 11:40:34 21[IKE] <Appzone_FS-1|554> IDir 'x.x.x.x' does not match to 'x.x.x.x'
    2018-01-09 11:40:34 21[IKE] <Appzone_FS-1|554> deleting IKE_SA Appzone_FS-1[554] between x.x.x.x[x.x.x.x]...x.x.x.x[%any]
    2018-01-09 11:40:34 21[IKE] <Appzone_FS-1|554> sending DELETE for IKE_SA Appzone_FS-1[554]
    2018-01-09 11:40:34 21[ENC] <Appzone_FS-1|554> generating INFORMATIONAL_V1 request 318455793 [ HASH D ]
    2018-01-09 11:40:34 21[NET] <Appzone_FS-1|554> sending packet: from x.x.x.x[500] to x.x.x.x[500] (108 bytes)
    2018-01-09 11:40:35 20[DMN] [GARNER-LOGGING] (child_alert) ALERT: received IKE message with invalid SPI (66AF1C8E) from other side

     

     

    The result of packet capture from sophos:


    10:40:38.891222 Port2, OUT: IP x.x.x.x > x.x.x.x.500: isakmp: phase 1 I ident
    10:40:43.759764 Port2, OUT: IP x.x.x.x.500 > x.x.x.x.500: isakmp: phase 1 I ident
    10:40:47.763232 Port2, OUT: IP x.x.x.x.500 > x.x.x.x.500: isakmp: phase 1 I ident
    10:40:54.967229 Port2, OUT: IP x.x.x.x.500 > x.x.x.x: isakmp: phase 1 I ident
    10:40:54.977209 Port2, IN: IP x.x.x.x.500 > x.x.x.x.500: isakmp: phase 1 I ident
    10:40:54.977801 Port2, OUT: IP x.x.x.x.500 > x.x.x.x.500: isakmp: phase 2/others R inf
    10:41:07.931189 Port2, OUT: IP x.x.x.x.500 > x.x.x.x.500: isakmp: phase 1 I ident
    10:41:31.263236 Port2, OUT: IP x.x.x.x.500 > x.x.x.x.500: isakmp: phase 1 I ident
    10:41:54.475870 Port2, OUT: IP x.x.x.x.500 > x.x.x.x.500: isakmp: phase 1 I ident
    10:41:58.483187 Port2, OUT: IP x.x.x.x.500 > x.x.x.x.500: isakmp: phase 1 I ident
    10:42:04.998812 Port2, IN: IP x.x.x.x.500 > x.x.x.x.500: isakmp: phase 1 I ident
    10:42:04.999480 Port2, OUT: IP x.x.x.x.500 > x.x.x.x.500: isakmp: phase 2/others R inf
    10:42:05.691245 Port2, OUT: IP x.x.x.x.500 > x.x.x.x.500: isakmp: phase 1 I ident
    10:42:08.983560 Port2, IN: IP x.x.x.x.500 > x.x.x.x.500: isakmp: phase 1 I ident
    10:42:08.984166 Port2, OUT: IP x.x.x.x.500 > x.x.x.x.500: isakmp: phase 2/others R inf
    10:42:12.982913 Port2, IN: IP x.x.x.x.500 > x.x.x.x.500: isakmp: phase 1 I ident
    10:42:12.983531 Port2, OUT: IP x.x.x.x.500 > x.x.x.x.500: isakmp: phase 2/others R inf
    10:42:13.259190 Port2, OUT: IP x.x.x.x.500 > x.x.x.x.500: isakmp: phase 1 I ident
    10:42:18.659204 Port2, OUT: IP x.x.x.x.500 > x.x.x.x.500: isakmp: phase 1 I ident


    19 packets captured
    21 packets received by filter
    0 packets dropped by kernel

     

     

  • 0 in reply to Ohis

    Hi Ohis,

    i think this is the Relevant line:

     

    2018-01-09 11:40:34 21[IKE] <Appzone_FS-1|554> IDir 'x.x.x.x' does not match to 'x.x.x.x'

     

    the ID you configured does not match the ID with wich the Fortinet tried to authenticate.

    if the numbers in the logline are the same maybe it is the wrong Format

    example: expected ID Type in UTM is "IPv4" and your Fortynet sends ID-Type "Hostname" filled with an IP Adress (Looks the same in logging)

     

    Yours Lukas

    lna@cema

    SCA (utm+xg), SCSE, SCT

    Sophos Platinum Partner

  • 0 in reply to Ohis

    Hi and welcome to the UTM Community!

    There are very few people participating here that have extensive knowledge about XG - Lukas is one of them.  You should post your XG questions in the XG Community.

    Cheers - Bob

     
    Sophos UTM Community Moderator
    Sophos Certified Architect - UTM
    Sophos Certified Engineer - XG
    Gold Solution Partner since 2005
    MediaSoft, Inc. USA
  • 0 in reply to BAlfson

    I'd check the VPN ID's on both sides ie hostname/ip address/email address

  • 0 in reply to lna

    Hello,

    Thanks Ina and everyone that contributed I just resolve the issue by replacing the fortigate with cisco router the the vpn was established almost immediately givving me the conclusion of the only mismatch error I've been getting is the equipment compartibility.

     

    Thank you so much  

Reply
  • 0 in reply to lna

    Hello,

    Thanks Ina and everyone that contributed I just resolve the issue by replacing the fortigate with cisco router the the vpn was established almost immediately givving me the conclusion of the only mismatch error I've been getting is the equipment compartibility.

     

    Thank you so much  

Children
No Data
Share Feedback
×

Submitted a Tech Support Case lately from the Support Portal?

Unfiltered HTML