- stunnel-users - stunnel.org

Stunnel client hangs in background mode when smartcard is used
by John Abloyer 08 Jun '09

08 Jun '09

Hi! I have a problem when running ssh over stunnel in background mode ('foreground' out-commented in config file). In foreground mode, everything works fine. I'm using a modified OpenSSL, adding an engine that is dedicated to communicate with a smartcard reader. The scenario is: - Starting stunnel on server, extract from config file: [ssh] accept = myserver:122 connect = 22 - Starting stunnel on client, extract from config file: engine = myengine engineNum = 1 client = yes [ssh] accept = 22 connect = myserver:122 I come to here, than it hangs: ... 2009.06.08 15:08:22 LOG7[472:3054680976]: SSL state (connect): SSLv3 read server certificate A 2009.06.08 15:08:22 LOG7[472:3054680976]: SSL state (connect): SSLv3 read server certificate request A 2009.06.08 15:08:22 LOG7[472:3054680976]: SSL state (connect): SSLv3 read server done A 2009.06.08 15:08:22 LOG7[472:3054680976]: SSL state (connect): SSLv3 write client certificate A 2009.06.08 15:08:22 LOG7[472:3054680976]: SSL state (connect): SSLv3 write client key exchange A - - - - - - - But when I run in foreground mode, it all works fine and stunnel continues and I get the ssh login prompt. I'm running RHEL 5.2, OpenSSL 0.9.8*, stunnel 4.27 Any help would be appreciated Rgds JA

1 0

start parameters
by Sebastian Rose-Indorf 07 Jun '09

07 Jun '09

Hello, a short question: Which start parameters are there for Stunnel v4.xx? Thanks, Seb. _ ASCII ribbon campaign against HTML e-mail ( ) & proprietary e-mail formats X / \ www.asciiribbon.org

1 0

Re: [stunnel-users] 1 server and more desktops
by aaa aaa 07 Jun '09

07 Jun '09

hello Christophe, thanks for your answer. Sorry for any misunderstanding. Well, I just wanted to ask if it is able to set stunnel for working with more certificates? So it means that I don't want to have secured tunnel between remote and local computer only but also between one remote and many local computers with more certificates? Every local computer should have own certificate. Is this possible? thank you. ---- Pôvodná správa ---- Od koho: Christophe Nanteuil <christophe.nanteuil(a)gmail.com> Komu: aaa aaa <miamia(a)inmail.sk> Dátum: 7. 6. 2009 16:27:00 Predmet: Re: [stunnel-users] 1 server and more desktops Hello, Stunnel is an application oriented tunnel, not a machine oriented tunnel. Please, be more precise in your requests if you want someone to be able to help you. It seems also that the stunnel documentation pages are worh reading in your case. Regards, -- Christophe 2009/6/7 aaa aaa <miamia(a)inmail.sk>: > Hello, > > I have one server and 3 desktops (PC1,PC2,PC3). I need to do this: every pc > should communicate with server with his own certificate and server should > sends anwser back to the computer encrypted for this one pc only. > > Example: PC3 {with server's public key} sends data to server and server > sends answer to PC3 (encrypted wiht unique PC3's public key). > then PC2 {with server's public key} sends data to server and server sends > answer to PC2 (encrypted wiht unique PC2's public key). and so on... how > should I configure stunnel for this? > > And another question > how should I configure all computers (server, > pc1,pc2,pc3) to accept communication over secured stunnel only and drop all > other unsecured communication? > > > thank you in advance. > regards, Mia > ---------- > Sutaz s InPage o ceny za viac ako 2000 Euro. Info na www.inpage.sk. Domena, > webhosting, e-mail a seo od 10 centov/denne. > > _______________________________________________ > stunnel-users mailing list > stunnel-users(a)mirt.net > http://stunnel.mirt.net/mailman/listinfo/stunnel-users > > ---------- Sutaz s InPage o ceny za viac ako 2000 Euro. Info na www.inpage.sk. Domena, webhosting, e-mail a seo od 10 centov/denne.

1 0

stunnel through httpd
by Chatty 07 Jun '09

07 Jun '09

Hello, I've got the crazy idea to run stunnel behind an existing, SSL-enabled, basic-auth-using httpd. Configuration would be as follows: 1. put some stunnel.cgi into /usr/www/cgi-bin which would call stunnel binary 2. start stunnel client with -r https://login:[email protected]/cgi-bin/stunnel.cgi Advantages (assumed you're behind a proxy which allows only 443 as outgoing port): a. You can still access other WebIFs on that server. b. You don't have to administer another web server including authentication, certificates and so on. May be stunnel is not the best tool for the above scenario (I reckon stunnel is currently unable to fulfill this)... I hope someone can shed some light on this. Cheers, Chatty.

1 0

1 server and more desktops
by aaa aaa 07 Jun '09

07 Jun '09

Hello, I have one server and 3 desktops (PC1,PC2,PC3). I need to do this: every pc should communicate with server with his own certificate and server should sends anwser back to the computer encrypted for this one pc only. Example: PC3 {with server's public key} sends data to server and server sends answer to PC3 (encrypted wiht unique PC3's public key). then PC2 {with server's public key} sends data to server and server sends answer to PC2 (encrypted wiht unique PC2's public key). and so on... how should I configure stunnel for this? And another question > how should I configure all computers (server, pc1,pc2,pc3) to accept communication over secured stunnel only and drop all other unsecured communication? thank you in advance. regards, Mia ---------- Sutaz s InPage o ceny za viac ako 2000 Euro. Info na www.inpage.sk. Domena, webhosting, e-mail a seo od 10 centov/denne.

2 1

securing OpenBSD/FreeBSD with stunnel
by aaa aaa 07 Jun '09

07 Jun '09

Hello guys, I would like to secure my OpenBSD/FreeBSD for communication over stunnel only. How should I configure BSD and stunnel when I want allow comminucation with one server only (data from pc encrypted with server's public certificate and allow data from this server to my pc encrypted with pc's public key) and drop all other communication (all other ports and certificates)? thank you, mia ---------- Sutaz s InPage o ceny za viac ako 2000 Euro. Info na www.inpage.sk. Domena, webhosting, e-mail a seo od 10 centov/denne.

1 0

Newbie question
by STEVEN BLAIR 02 Jun '09

02 Jun '09

I would be really grateful if someone could help me out with this problem. There appears to be a very high time between my client and server in transferring data. The log shows the following: 2009.06.02 12:32:59 LOG5[5824:5516]: TS3_GPRS accepted connection from 193.35.132.231:45050 2009.06.02 12:32:59 LOG7[5824:5516]: SSL state (accept): before/accept initialization 2009.06.02 12:32:59 LOG7[5824:5516]: SSL state (accept): SSLv3 read client hello A 2009.06.02 12:32:59 LOG7[5824:5516]: SSL state (accept): SSLv3 write server hello A 2009.06.02 12:32:59 LOG7[5824:5516]: SSL state (accept): SSLv3 write certificate A 2009.06.02 12:32:59 LOG7[5824:5516]: SSL state (accept): SSLv3 write certificate request A 2009.06.02 12:32:59 LOG7[5824:5516]: SSL state (accept): SSLv3 flush data 2009.06.02 12:33:09 LOG5[5824:5516]: CRL: verification passed 2009.06.02 12:33:09 LOG5[5824:5516]: VERIFY OK: depth=1, /C=UK/ST=Fife/L=Dunfermline/O=TS3 Services Ltd/OU=Infrastructure/CN=TS3 Services Ltd/emailAddress=helpdesk(a)ts3services.co.uk 2009.06.02 12:33:09 LOG5[5824:5516]: CRL: verification passed 2009.06.02 12:33:09 LOG5[5824:5516]: VERIFY OK: depth=0, /C=UK/ST=Fife/O=TS3 Services Ltd/OU=Terminal/CN=TS3 Services Ltd/emailAddress=helpdesk(a)ts3services.co.uk 2009.06.02 12:33:09 LOG7[5824:5516]: SSL state (accept): SSLv3 read client certificate A 2009.06.02 12:33:09 LOG7[5824:5516]: SSL state (accept): SSLv3 read client key exchange A 2009.06.02 12:33:09 LOG7[5824:5516]: SSL state (accept): SSLv3 read certificate verify A 2009.06.02 12:33:10 LOG7[5824:5516]: SSL state (accept): SSLv3 read finished A 2009.06.02 12:33:10 LOG7[5824:5516]: SSL state (accept): SSLv3 write change cipher spec A 2009.06.02 12:33:10 LOG7[5824:5516]: SSL state (accept): SSLv3 write finished A 2009.06.02 12:33:10 LOG7[5824:5516]: SSL state (accept): SSLv3 flush data 2009.06.02 12:33:10 LOG7[5824:5516]: 2 items in the session cache 2009.06.02 12:33:10 LOG7[5824:5516]: 0 client connects (SSL_connect()) 2009.06.02 12:33:10 LOG7[5824:5516]: 0 client connects that finished 2009.06.02 12:33:10 LOG7[5824:5516]: 0 client renegotiations requested 2009.06.02 12:33:10 LOG7[5824:5516]: 2 server connects (SSL_accept()) 2009.06.02 12:33:10 LOG7[5824:5516]: 2 server connects that finished 2009.06.02 12:33:10 LOG7[5824:5516]: 0 server renegotiations requested 2009.06.02 12:33:10 LOG7[5824:5516]: 0 session cache hits 2009.06.02 12:33:10 LOG7[5824:5516]: 0 session cache misses 2009.06.02 12:33:10 LOG7[5824:5516]: 0 session cache timeouts 2009.06.02 12:33:10 LOG6[5824:5516]: SSL accepted: new session negotiated 2009.06.02 12:33:10 LOG6[5824:5516]: Negotiated ciphers: DES-CBC3-SHA SSLv3 Kx=RSA Au=RSA Enc=3DES(168) Mac=SHA1 2009.06.02 12:33:10 LOG7[5824:5516]: FD 292 in non-blocking mode 2009.06.02 12:33:10 LOG7[5824:5516]: TS3_GPRS connecting 127.0.0.1:8139 2009.06.02 12:33:10 LOG7[5824:5516]: connect_wait: waiting 10 seconds 2009.06.02 12:33:10 LOG7[5824:5516]: connect_wait: connected 2009.06.02 12:33:10 LOG5[5824:5516]: TS3_GPRS connected remote server from 127.0.0.1:2273 2009.06.02 12:33:10 LOG7[5824:5516]: Remote FD=292 initialized 2009.06.02 12:33:31 LOG7[5824:5516]: Socket closed on read 2009.06.02 12:33:31 LOG7[5824:5516]: SSL write shutdown 2009.06.02 12:33:31 LOG7[5824:5516]: SSL alert (write): warning: close notify 2009.06.02 12:33:31 LOG6[5824:5516]: SSL socket closed on SSL_shutdown 2009.06.02 12:33:31 LOG7[5824:5516]: Socket write shutdown 2009.06.02 12:33:31 LOG5[5824:5516]: Connection closed: 65 bytes sent to SSL, 185 bytes sent to socket 2009.06.02 12:33:31 LOG7[5824:5516]: TS3_GPRS finished (0 left) The main issue for me is the time between the two lines: 2009.06.02 12:32:59 LOG7[5824:5516]: SSL state (accept): SSLv3 flush data 2009.06.02 12:33:09 LOG5[5824:5516]: CRL: verification passed The handshaking and certificate exchange appears to be pretty quick, but I need to understand why there is 10 second delay between these two lines. It seems horrendous amount of time for transferring data. It might be my lack of understanding on the SSL process, so any information on this would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance, Steven

1 0

Re: [stunnel-users] Stunnel for secure email connections
by Lee 25 May '09

25 May '09

Thanks again, Guy, I appreciate your efforts there. So I don't have to do anything regarding certificates or digital signatures, or anything along those lines? I just install OpenSSL and Stunnel, configure stunnel.conf, tweak Thunderbird's accounts settings and Avast's ports, and go with it? Guy wrote: > So what you have to do to proxy the connections through Avast! I don't > know, you'll need to show. > Do you *really* need to scan your outbound connections? > This whole thing is more of a challenge / experiment than anything else. Certainly, scanning my SMTP connection(s) is far from important. Off this specific Stunnel issue but related:- For the last day or so, I've gone back to my 'old' setup of TB + Popfile + Avast, and I've noticed that emails from my 'secure' POP connections are actually being scanned by Avast. They probably have been for some time and I didn't notice, but only recently have I turned on the 'adding of notes' in Avast's email scanner which adds an email footer along the lines of 'Avast found this message to be clean'. I assume this scanning of 'secure' emails is a convenient byproduct somehow or other of routing the secure connections through Popfile. For reference, Popfile is listening on its default port of 110, and the Avast email scanner currently also only has port 110 in its POP redirected ports settings. Thunderbird has the host for those accounts as 127.0.0.1, also on port 110, and the username is in the form of: pop_server:username:ssl which Popfile requires. The :ssl is required by Popfile to handle secure connections. I do notice that non-secure connections' emails end up with the scanning footer being added twice, suggesting Avast is double scanning them. Secure connections' emails only get the one footer added. So all told, all incoming email seems to be scanned by Avast, albeit some of it twice. > Your stunnel configuration file has 2 [popmail] service names, that > will be confusing. And why do you have a [popmail] and [pop3_sky] > connecting to the same MTA? > That is because I don't know what I'm doing :) I originally built stunnel.conf without catering for Popfile, then I wanted to introduce Popfile into the equation, so I found the below advice page regarding Popfile and Stunnel :- http://getpopfile.org/docs/howtos:stunnel It appears I wrongly guessed how to interpret that advice on what to add to stunnel.conf I have since had some clarification on this from a query I raised on this at the Popfile forums:- http://getpopfile.org/discussion/1/188 > Did you enable debugging within stunnel? > > Global options: > > debug = debug > output = stunnel.log > Yes, I did try that, and dabbled a little with the packet sniffers. However I didn't find it any easier to pinpoint what was actually going on regarding the prescence or otherwise of a secure connection. ie I don't know what I'm looking at/for. At the moment, my only method of 'testing' what is 'probably' going on, is to open or close parts of my local chain, and thereby build an apparent picture of what is happening. My original doubts of 'am I actually achieving a secure connection using Stunnel and my local chain' are not grounded in anything; I am/was just wanting to somehow avoid just assuming I had set everything up properly. Lee

1 0

Re: [stunnel-users] Stunnel for secure email connections
by Lee 24 May '09

24 May '09

Hello Guy and thanks for your reply. Guy wrote: > So you have... > Client (MUA) <=> Avast and/or Popfile <=> Stunnel <=> Server (MTA) > > > Yes, that's right. I've looked at the mail headers more, and tried some of the packet sniffing/log methods, but I'm not really having any more success in understanding / pinpointing a secure connection. I think I'm not going to be able to grasp the issues here, so maybe it is simpler if I could simply state what I have done, to check that it should be correct; I installed both OpenSLL and Stunnel. I haven't changed anything from the OpenSLL install. In stunnel.conf, I currently have the file shown at the bottom of this email. I have changed settings in Thunderbird's mail accounts (hosts and ports) and in Avast Anti-Virus email scanner. (its redirected ports settings) Adding Popfile (a local mail 'tagging' proxy) back into the equation has required some further tweaks to Thunderbird's ports and server usernames syntax. As I said earlier, all seems to be working, in that my 'chain' appears to be having an effect. However should I be considering anything else to make this process meaningful, such as certificates or security issues? My only motive for using Stunnel and OpenSSL is to allow Avast email scanner to scan _all_ emails, including those it normally cannot scan due to their servers requiring me to use a secure connection. So, if I am doing this 'new' process wrongly or opening up security issues due to not understanding it, I would be better off reverting to how it was previously, seeing as the mail servers I use state they do virus scanning anyway. Thanks again, Lee UK my current stunnel.conf :- client=yes service=popmail [popmail] accept = 127.0.0.1:210 connect = pop.mail.yahoo.co.uk:995 [popmail] accept = 127.0.0.1:310 connect = pop.tools.sky.com:995 [pop3_sky] accept = 127.0.0.1:1109 connect = pop.tools.sky.com:995 [pop3_yahoo] accept = 127.0.0.1:1108 connect = pop.mail.yahoo.co.uk:995 [smtp_sky] accept=127.0.0.1:259 connect=smtp.tools.sky.com:465 [smtp_yahoo] accept=127.0.0.1:258 connect=smtp.mail.yahoo.co.uk:465 [imap_sky] accept=127.0.0.1:1439 connect=imap.tools.sky.com:993 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 090524-0, 24/05/2009 Tested on: 5/24/2009 15:38:38 avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. http://www.avast.com

1 0

Stunnel for secure email connections; email headers ?
by Lee 23 May '09

23 May '09

Hello, I have been dabbling with Stunnel in order to do the following: Connect with remote POP3, IMAP and SMTP servers using a secure connection; Path those connections on my Windows XP desktop pc through Avast Anti-Virus and/or Popfile to Mozilla Thunderbird. After much fiddling and grinding of my rusty mental muscles, I appear to have everything working and pathing properly. However I am not confident and some amount of luck has been involved in settling on the apparently correct pathing, ports settings and stunnel.conf So, my question here is; Can I look for anything in the email headers to verify that I am actually achieving a locally made secure connection using Stunnel? Or, if necessary, can I force something into the headers to show this? As I imply, results/clues suggest all is in place correctly, but part of me doesn't really believe I have actually done it. :) Thanks very much, Lee UK --- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 090523-0, 23/05/2009 Tested on: 5/23/2009 23:25:18 avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2009 ALWIL Software. http://www.avast.com

1 0