A couple of questions regarding some VPN featuresHi,<br>I have a couple of questions regarding VPN:<br><br> - Will we be able to specify which certificate on TMG will be used for IKE authentication for L2TP/IPsec connections ?<br>Right now with ISA 2006, we can only specify which certificate on ISA can be used for EAP-TLS from RRAS.<br>Assuming that we want to use Vista with &quot;The Verify name and usage attributes of the server’s certificate&quot; option(http://support.microsoft.com/kb/926182) and there are multiple certificates on TMG from the same internal CA, it would be useful to specify which certificate we want TMG to use for IKE authentication.<br><br> - Will we be able to specify on which IP address from the external NIC is TMG listening for VPN connections when we have multiple IP addresses on that NIC ?<br>Right now we can only specify on which Networks is ISA 2006 listening for incoming VPN connections.<br><br> - Will we be able to specify which VPN users can use PPTP and which can use L2TP/IPsec from the TMG GUI ?<br>With ISA we can do that using IAS for example, but not from ISA's GUI.<br><br> - An annoying problem with ISA 2006 was related to IPsec tunnel mode site-to-site connections. In many cases, we do not need to specify as local subnet the entire Internal Network. Only a few servers need to be accessible from the remote site.<br>While is not a problem to specify that the remote site include only a few IP addresses, the site-to-site wizard does not ask us about the local subnet. It is &quot;assumed&quot; that the entire range of IP addresses from the Internal Network is to be used.<br>The IPsec tunnel mode site-to-site connections depend on the proxy identities (QM filters) presented during IKE Quick Mode negotiations. Thus, we  end up having a &quot;situation&quot;...<br>I wrote about it here:<br>http://www.carbonwind.net/ISA/IPsecTunnelModeNotSupportedThings/IPsecTunnelModeNotSupportedThings.htm<br><br> - regarding L2TP/IPsec VPN connections, will be a separation between the IPsec policies used for remote access and site-to-site connections, thus will we be able to adjust the L2TP/IPsec site-to-site connections to use PFS for session keys or to set a lifetime in MB for the IPsec SAs ?<br>These are, I would say sensitive settings for a site-to-site connection.<br>Also with IPsec tunnel mode site-to-site connections we can use AES 258, SHA 256...<br>I see(with Wireshark) that Elliptic Curve Diffie-Hellman 384-bit Group is used(equals AES 192 strength) by default with L2TP/IPsec. And IPsec Monitor shows no PFS for session keys.<br>But it looks(from Firewall with Advanced Security/Monitoring/SAs/MM or QM) that with L2TP/IPsec, SHA-1 is used, although AES 256 for IPsec SAs is available if we select maximum encryption strength...<br>(&quot;There is a significant implementation problem with AES in that the key requirement for DH is very large and few implementations can support generation of a key that size.&quot;, http://www.microsoft.com/technet/community/chats/trans/network/net0610.mspx)<br>According to this, http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/800-57/SP800-57-Part1.pdf, SHA-1 is not quite up to the &quot;task&quot; of &quot;playing&quot; with EC DH 384-bit group or AES 256.<br>So will we be able to modify the default IPsec policy for L2TP/IPsec site-to-site connections ?<br><br> - Interesting, in the RRAS console on Win 2008 &quot;The Verify name and usage attributes of the server’s certificate&quot; option is available. Assuming that we check this checkbox(or maybe we should stay away from it), and it works, we may fall into the certificate selection for IKE authentication problem ?<br><br> - I'll throw this one in, although it not seems feasible to me right now, will we get dynamic routing support(say OSPF) for L2TP/IPsec site-to-site connections, thus benefit from what some may call dynamic site-to-site VPNs ?<br><br>Thanks,<br>Adrian<br> © 2009 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.Thu, 19 Feb 2009 22:26:59 Z836b99c5-a180-4c72-bf54-40beba258ecahttp://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/FTMGNext/thread/836b99c5-a180-4c72-bf54-40beba258eca#836b99c5-a180-4c72-bf54-40beba258ecahttp://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/FTMGNext/thread/836b99c5-a180-4c72-bf54-40beba258eca#836b99c5-a180-4c72-bf54-40beba258ecaadimcevhttp://social.technet.microsoft.com/Profile/en-US/?user=adimcevA couple of questions regarding some VPN featuresHi,<br>I have a couple of questions regarding VPN:<br><br> - Will we be able to specify which certificate on TMG will be used for IKE authentication for L2TP/IPsec connections ?<br>Right now with ISA 2006, we can only specify which certificate on ISA can be used for EAP-TLS from RRAS.<br>Assuming that we want to use Vista with &quot;The Verify name and usage attributes of the server’s certificate&quot; option(http://support.microsoft.com/kb/926182) and there are multiple certificates on TMG from the same internal CA, it would be useful to specify which certificate we want TMG to use for IKE authentication.<br><br> - Will we be able to specify on which IP address from the external NIC is TMG listening for VPN connections when we have multiple IP addresses on that NIC ?<br>Right now we can only specify on which Networks is ISA 2006 listening for incoming VPN connections.<br><br> - Will we be able to specify which VPN users can use PPTP and which can use L2TP/IPsec from the TMG GUI ?<br>With ISA we can do that using IAS for example, but not from ISA's GUI.<br><br> - An annoying problem with ISA 2006 was related to IPsec tunnel mode site-to-site connections. In many cases, we do not need to specify as local subnet the entire Internal Network. Only a few servers need to be accessible from the remote site.<br>While is not a problem to specify that the remote site include only a few IP addresses, the site-to-site wizard does not ask us about the local subnet. It is &quot;assumed&quot; that the entire range of IP addresses from the Internal Network is to be used.<br>The IPsec tunnel mode site-to-site connections depend on the proxy identities (QM filters) presented during IKE Quick Mode negotiations. Thus, we  end up having a &quot;situation&quot;...<br>I wrote about it here:<br>http://www.carbonwind.net/ISA/IPsecTunnelModeNotSupportedThings/IPsecTunnelModeNotSupportedThings.htm<br><br> - regarding L2TP/IPsec VPN connections, will be a separation between the IPsec policies used for remote access and site-to-site connections, thus will we be able to adjust the L2TP/IPsec site-to-site connections to use PFS for session keys or to set a lifetime in MB for the IPsec SAs ?<br>These are, I would say sensitive settings for a site-to-site connection.<br>Also with IPsec tunnel mode site-to-site connections we can use AES 258, SHA 256...<br>I see(with Wireshark) that Elliptic Curve Diffie-Hellman 384-bit Group is used(equals AES 192 strength) by default with L2TP/IPsec. And IPsec Monitor shows no PFS for session keys.<br>But it looks(from Firewall with Advanced Security/Monitoring/SAs/MM or QM) that with L2TP/IPsec, SHA-1 is used, although AES 256 for IPsec SAs is available if we select maximum encryption strength...<br>(&quot;There is a significant implementation problem with AES in that the key requirement for DH is very large and few implementations can support generation of a key that size.&quot;, http://www.microsoft.com/technet/community/chats/trans/network/net0610.mspx)<br>According to this, http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/800-57/SP800-57-Part1.pdf, SHA-1 is not quite up to the &quot;task&quot; of &quot;playing&quot; with EC DH 384-bit group or AES 256.<br>So will we be able to modify the default IPsec policy for L2TP/IPsec site-to-site connections ?<br><br> - Interesting, in the RRAS console on Win 2008 &quot;The Verify name and usage attributes of the server’s certificate&quot; option is available. Assuming that we check this checkbox(or maybe we should stay away from it), and it works, we may fall into the certificate selection for IKE authentication problem ?<br><br> - I'll throw this one in, although it not seems feasible to me right now, will we get dynamic routing support(say OSPF) for L2TP/IPsec site-to-site connections, thus benefit from what some may call dynamic site-to-site VPNs ?<br><br>Thanks,<br>Adrian<br> Wed, 25 Jun 2008 14:10:49 Z2008-06-25T14:10:49Zhttp://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/FTMGNext/thread/836b99c5-a180-4c72-bf54-40beba258eca#240107f8-9c0d-4436-be2f-668cb06e3c55http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/FTMGNext/thread/836b99c5-a180-4c72-bf54-40beba258eca#240107f8-9c0d-4436-be2f-668cb06e3c55Didi Ranhttp://social.technet.microsoft.com/Profile/en-US/?user=Didi%20RanA couple of questions regarding some VPN features Hi Adrian,<br>For now, the only new VPN-related features in TMG are NAP and SSTP support for roaming clients.<br><hr size="1" align="left" width="25%">Didi RanWed, 16 Jul 2008 07:15:53 Z2008-07-16T07:15:53Zhttp://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/FTMGNext/thread/836b99c5-a180-4c72-bf54-40beba258eca#2d3a693c-2d9d-4427-8042-2c1f10d7103bhttp://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/FTMGNext/thread/836b99c5-a180-4c72-bf54-40beba258eca#2d3a693c-2d9d-4427-8042-2c1f10d7103badimcevhttp://social.technet.microsoft.com/Profile/en-US/?user=adimcevA couple of questions regarding some VPN featuresHi Didi,<br>Ok, I see.<br>Thanks,<br>Adrian<br> Sat, 19 Jul 2008 11:57:57 Z2008-07-19T11:57:57Zhttp://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/FTMGNext/thread/836b99c5-a180-4c72-bf54-40beba258eca#2ffe9829-ab0a-4267-97da-202b3ff73f01http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/FTMGNext/thread/836b99c5-a180-4c72-bf54-40beba258eca#2ffe9829-ab0a-4267-97da-202b3ff73f01Faizan Khanhttp://social.technet.microsoft.com/Profile/en-US/?user=Faizan%20KhanA couple of questions regarding some VPN features Hi Adrian and Didi,<br><br>I'm hitting a similar problem in that, while I can set Windows 2008 firewall settings to require SHA-256 or SHA-384 to meet Suite B requirements I cannot do the same with RRAS on Windows 2008.  Will ForeFront give me the ability to enforce VPN connectivity at a Suite B compliant encryption level that includes SHA-256 or SHA-384?<br><br>Thanks,<br><br>Faizan<hr class="sig">FaizanThu, 19 Feb 2009 22:26:57 Z2009-02-19T22:26:57Z