[OpenVPN home] [Date Prev] [Date Index] [Date Next]
[OpenVPN mailing lists] [Thread Prev] [Thread Index] [Thread Next]
Google
 
Web openvpn.net

[Openvpn-users] Assertion failed at crypto.c:149


  • Subject: [Openvpn-users] Assertion failed at crypto.c:149
  • From: Jon Bendtsen <jon.bendtsen@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 14:14:56 +0200

Wed Jun 2 13:23:12 2004 OpenVPN 2.0_beta2 powerpc-apple-darwin7.4.0 [SSL] [LZO] built on May 27 2004
Wed Jun 2 13:23:12 2004 WARNING: file 'sample-keys/client.key' is group or others accessible
Wed Jun 2 13:23:12 2004 Control Channel MTU parms [ L:1541 D:138 EF:38 EB:0 ET:0 EL:0 ]
Wed Jun 2 13:23:12 2004 Data Channel MTU parms [ L:1541 D:1450 EF:41 EB:0 ET:0 EL:0 ]
Wed Jun 2 13:23:12 2004 Local Options String: 'V3,dev-type tun,link-mtu 1541,tun-mtu 1500,proto UDPv4,cipher BF-CBC,auth SHA1,keysize 128,key-method 2,tls-client'
Wed Jun 2 13:23:12 2004 Expected Remote Options String: 'V3,dev-type tun,link-mtu 1541,tun-mtu 1500,proto UDPv4,cipher BF-CBC,auth SHA1,keysize 128,key-method 2,tls-server'
Wed Jun 2 13:23:12 2004 Local Options hash (VER=V3): 'a0f1c7ed'
Wed Jun 2 13:23:12 2004 Expected Remote Options hash (VER=V3): 'b319fa3e'
Wed Jun 2 13:23:12 2004 Socket Buffers: R=[42080->65536] S=[9216->65536]
Wed Jun 2 13:23:12 2004 UDPv4 link local (bound): 192.168.119.162:5000
Wed Jun 2 13:23:12 2004 UDPv4 link remote: 192.168.119.135:5000
Wed Jun 2 13:23:12 2004 TLS: Initial packet from 192.168.119.135:5000, sid=2e010c5c 26b06532
Wed Jun 2 13:23:12 2004 VERIFY OK: depth=1, /C=US/ST=CO/L=Denver/O=NTLP/CN=Test-CA/emailAddress=jim@xxxxxxxx
Wed Jun 2 13:23:12 2004 VERIFY OK: depth=0, /C=US/ST=CO/O=NTLP/CN=Test-Server/emailAddress=jim@xxxxxxxx
Wed Jun 2 13:23:13 2004 WARNING: Actual Remote Options ('V3,dev-type tun,link-mtu 1573,tun-mtu 1532,proto UDPv4,cipher BF-CBC,auth SHA1,keysize 128,key-method 2,tls-server') are inconsistent with Expected Remote Options ('V3,dev-type tun,link-mtu 1541,tun-mtu 1500,proto UDPv4,cipher BF-CBC,auth SHA1,keysize 128,key-method 2,tls-server')
Wed Jun 2 13:23:13 2004 Data Channel Encrypt: Cipher 'BF-CBC' initialized with 128 bit key
Wed Jun 2 13:23:13 2004 Data Channel Encrypt: Using 160 bit message hash 'SHA1' for HMAC authentication
Wed Jun 2 13:23:13 2004 Data Channel Decrypt: Cipher 'BF-CBC' initialized with 128 bit key
Wed Jun 2 13:23:13 2004 Data Channel Decrypt: Using 160 bit message hash 'SHA1' for HMAC authentication
Wed Jun 2 13:23:13 2004 Control Channel: TLSv1, cipher TLSv1/SSLv3 EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA, 1024 bit RSA
Wed Jun 2 13:23:13 2004 [Test-Server] Peer Connection Initiated with 192.168.119.135:5000
Wed Jun 2 13:23:14 2004 SENT CONTROL [Test-Server]: 'PUSH_REQUEST' (status=1)
Wed Jun 2 13:23:14 2004 PUSH: Received control message: 'PUSH_REPLY,route 10.8.0.1 255.255.255.255,ifconfig 10.8.0.6 10.8.0.5'
Wed Jun 2 13:23:14 2004 OPTIONS IMPORT: --ifconfig/up options modified
Wed Jun 2 13:23:14 2004 OPTIONS IMPORT: route options modified
Wed Jun 2 13:23:14 2004 gw 192.168.119.135
Wed Jun 2 13:23:14 2004 TUN/TAP device /dev/tun0 opened
Wed Jun 2 13:23:14 2004 /sbin/ifconfig tun0 delete
Wed Jun 2 13:23:14 2004 NOTE: Tried to delete pre-existing tun/tap instance -- No Problem if failure
Wed Jun 2 13:23:14 2004 /sbin/ifconfig tun0 10.8.0.6 10.8.0.5 mtu 1500 netmask 255.255.255.255 up
Wed Jun 2 13:23:14 2004 /sbin/route add -net 10.8.0.1 10.8.0.5 255.255.255.255
add net 10.8.0.1: gateway 10.8.0.5
Wed Jun 2 13:27:47 2004 Assertion failed at crypto.c:149
Wed Jun 2 13:27:47 2004 Exiting



There has been no trafic over the line. i will test with pings.
If i pinged from both sides it was still up almost 20 minutes before i killed the ping from the server
ping from client to server stadig up


The windows client gave exactly the same assertion error with a unused tunnel. (after just 2? minutes)
And now the server says:
Wed Jun 2 14:00:26 2004 read UDPv4 [ECONNREFUSED]: Connection refused (code=111)
Wed Jun 2 14:00:37 2004 read UDPv4 [ECONNREFUSED]: Connection refused (code=111)
Wed Jun 2 14:00:48 2004 read UDPv4 [ECONNREFUSED]: Connection refused (code=111)
Doesnt the servers tunnel time out ?
Wed Jun 2 14:02:04 2004 Test-Client/192.168.119.232:5000 Inactivity timeout (--inactive), exiting
Wed Jun 2 14:02:04 2004 Test-Client/192.168.119.232:5000 MULTI: multi_close_instance called
apparently it does.


the server also gave me a
Wed Jun 2 13:54:08 2004 Test-Client/192.168.119.232:5000 NOTE: failed to empirically measure MTU (requires 1.5-beta8 or higher at other end of connection).
but i am using openvpn2.0 beta2 at both ends.


14:05 Mac client that pings still has tunnel ip. Switching to server side pings

Wed Jun 2 14:04:13 2004 Test-Client/192.168.119.232:5000 SENT CONTROL [Test-Client]: 'PUSH_REPLY,route 10.8.0.1 255.255.255.255,ifconfig 10.8.0.10 10.8.0.9' (status=1)
Wed Jun 2 14:07:24 2004 read UDPv4 [ECONNREFUSED]: Connection refused (code=111)
...
Wed Jun 2 14:08:15 2004 read UDPv4 [ECONNREFUSED]: Connection refused (code=111)
Wed Jun 2 14:08:19 2004 Test-Client/192.168.119.232:5000 NOTE: failed to empirically measure MTU (requires 1.5-beta8 or higher at other end of connection).
Wed Jun 2 14:08:25 2004 read UDPv4 [ECONNREFUSED]: Connection refused (code=111)


this error comes at or a after the windows client dies. (the middle line)

14:15	mac client still running when server pings mac client.

One could say that of course the link dies when it isnt used, but what i dont like is that it dies with an assertion error.
It could say "link unused, closing"




JonB


____________________________________________ Openvpn-users mailing list Openvpn-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openvpn-users


Warning: require_once(../../../archive_common.php) [function.require-once]: failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/openvpn/domains/openvpn.net/public_html/archive/openvpn-users/2004-06/msg00039.html on line 289

Fatal error: require_once() [function.require]: Failed opening required '../../../archive_common.php' (include_path='/usr/local/lib/php') in /home/openvpn/domains/openvpn.net/public_html/archive/openvpn-users/2004-06/msg00039.html on line 289