cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
cancel
3888
Views
0
Helpful
4
Replies

NTP & SNMP Traffic

zekebashi
Level 4
Level 4

Hello, 

 

This should be a simple question. I am trying to create an extended ACL to deny NTP and SNMP traffic inbound (coming from the outside/Public to the inside/Private). There is an existing extended ACL, which denys several ip blocks (deny ip 0.0.0.0 0.255.255.255 any log-input, deny ip 10.0.0.0 0.255.255.255 any log-input, deny   ip 1deny   ip 127.0.0.0 0.255.255.255 any log-input, ....etc). However, our pen test came back showing that NTP and SNMP traffic to some addresses (public IP addresses assigned to some  internal services) were accessible. 

 

Would creating an extended ACL denying NTP and SNMP ports do the trick? 

 

Thanks in advance. 

 

~zK 

1 Accepted Solution

Accepted Solutions

Assuming the e0/1 interface id the one connecting to the internet, the a, b & c hosts are the internet NTP servers and the y.y.y.y being the router I believe it should look like:

!
!
access-list extended ALLOW_NTP_IN

! #### Allow NTP from the internet time servers (source port NTP)
    permit udp  host a.a.a.a eq ntp host y.y.y.y
    permit udp  host b.b.b.b eq ntp host y.y.y.y  
    permit udp  host c.c.c.c eq ntp host y.y.y.y

! #### Deny all other NTP from internet
    deny udp any eq ntp any

! #### Deny anything to NTP (addresses the pen test findings)
    deny udp any any eq ntp

! #### Permit all else
    permit any any
!
!
interface e0/1
    access-group ALLOW_NTP_IN in
!
!

 

This is because the internet NTP servers should be responding to NTP requests, so the source port from them would be 123 (NTP),  then block any other packets coming in with source port NTP, then deny anything with destination port NTP to address the penetration test findings, then allow everything else.

Hope that makes sense and works for you.

Regards

View solution in original post

4 Replies 4

chrihussey
VIP Alumni
VIP Alumni

Yes that would be one possible solution.

There are multiple ways to skin a cat. If you know the ports on the internal servers that should be accessible from the Internet, you could allow just those and deny all else too.

In the end it all depends on what's easier to manage.

Regards

 

 

Thanks! 

 

I need to allow just some NTP servers to access the edge router (3 specific IP addresses). The router is ASR1001-X. I was thinking about creating a simple extended ACL to permit only those public NTP servers through UDP port 123 and deny/block any UDP 123 traffic ingress. Is this the correct way of creating the ACL? 

 

access-list extended ALLOW_NTP_IN

    permit udp  host a.a.a.a  host y.y.y.y eq ntp 

    permit udp  host b.b.b.b host y.y.y.y eq ntp 

    permit udp  host c.c.c.c  host y.y.y.y eq ntp 

    deny   udp  any host y.y.y.y eq ntp 

    permit any any 

 

interface e0/1

    access-group ALLOW_NTP_IN in 

 

 

Thanks, ~zK 

 

 

Assuming the e0/1 interface id the one connecting to the internet, the a, b & c hosts are the internet NTP servers and the y.y.y.y being the router I believe it should look like:

!
!
access-list extended ALLOW_NTP_IN

! #### Allow NTP from the internet time servers (source port NTP)
    permit udp  host a.a.a.a eq ntp host y.y.y.y
    permit udp  host b.b.b.b eq ntp host y.y.y.y  
    permit udp  host c.c.c.c eq ntp host y.y.y.y

! #### Deny all other NTP from internet
    deny udp any eq ntp any

! #### Deny anything to NTP (addresses the pen test findings)
    deny udp any any eq ntp

! #### Permit all else
    permit any any
!
!
interface e0/1
    access-group ALLOW_NTP_IN in
!
!

 

This is because the internet NTP servers should be responding to NTP requests, so the source port from them would be 123 (NTP),  then block any other packets coming in with source port NTP, then deny anything with destination port NTP to address the penetration test findings, then allow everything else.

Hope that makes sense and works for you.

Regards

@chrihussey.. thank you, sir! 

 

Yes, you're correct in your assumption. 

 

That makes total sense.

 

Thanks, again. 

 

Best, ~zK