search for: ipfilters

hi all i'm trying to get ipfilter set up on my new 5.1-RELEASE box. ipfilter seems to be working fine. i just have a couple of issues that are probably not very serious... one thing is that during network startup at boot, i get the message IPFilter: already initialized repeated 4 times. i think i have everything configured properly my kernel config looks like options IPFILTER options

Hi. On my FreeBSD 4.8 configured IPFW2+IPF+IPNAT and I use them all: - IPFW - traffic accounting, shaping, balancing and filtering; - IPFilter - policy routing; - IPNAT - masquerading. I want to know, how IP-packets flow through all of this components? What's the path? incoming: IPFW Layer2 -> IPFW&Dummynet -> IPNAT -> IPFilter ? outgoing: IPFW Layer2 ->

Hello all, I want to learn about requirements if I want to protect gigabit network with ipfilter as transparent firewall. Which type of hardware is required to install FreeBSD + ipf (as transparancy ) . We use 3 gigabit ethernet to protection which type of gigabit ethernet carts are powerfull. Also, what about the NMBCLUSTERS , IPSTATE_SIZE and IPSTATE_MAX in ip_state.h. I want to collect all

Hi! I'm trying to increase security on my FreeBSD 4.8 firewall/DSL router/VPN router. My problem is with firewalling the VPN part. I'm using a tunnel to a RedHat 7.1 box running FreeS/WAN. This tunnel allows traffic from my internal net (172.17.0.0/24) to that box only: spdadd 172.17.0.0/24 $REDHAT/32 any -P out ipsec esp/tunnel/$MYADDR-$REDHAT/unique; spdadd $REDHAT/32 172.17.0.0/24

Just rebuilt and installed/world kernel: FreeBSD 4.8-STABLE #0: Fri Apr 11 14:34:37 EDT 2003 Using the latest Makefile for squid25: # fgrep \$FreeBSD /usr/ports/www/squid/Makefile # $FreeBSD: ports/www/squid/Makefile,v 1.100 2003/04/09 08:31:30 adrian Exp $ Modified with: # fgrep CONFIGURE_ARGS Makefile |fgrep -v \# CONFIGURE_ARGS= --bindir=${PREFIX}/sbin --sysconfdir=${PREFIX}/etc/squid \

I've found out from two different kernel configs that after properly compling kernel with IPFILTER support it causes the system not to boot. Its hard to say, what exactly it does, cause its not a local system. _______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to

Hello I am trying to set up a backup server running Solaris 8 with rsync 2.5.5 and ipfilter the latest version. The problem i have is i have about 16 different interfaces that are secured via ipfilter , and i tried running rsync via rsh but ipfilter would not set up a keepstate with rsh which meant i had to open up and that is not acceptable. So what i tried then was via ssh and that worked fine

Hi all. I didn't find any thread discussing it, sorry if I am re-posting the same subject. Is there a way to check the ipfilter/ipfw out-flow with bridge? Is it implemented? I've heard its not done due a performance issue (it's writen in ipf-howto), but performance is not the main goal for me in this single situation. I would like to have the stateful firewall and the bridge _fully_

Hi, sorry for cross-mailing. Reply-to: set to freebsd-net. I have seen some discussion on freebsd-security etc. about some parts of the subject. I have seen older messages in archives. Regularly the same questions seem to come up. I have not found an all-including description of the answer to s.th. like: "Can anybody tell me the order packets get processed in kernel related to IPSec,

Has anyone gotten a transparent firewall working? I''m using snv_125 on an IBM x346 (snv_130 goes into endless boot loops on this hardware). I can create a working bridge with dladm, but can''t stop packets, even with "block in quick all". That stops packets on my management interface bge0, but not on the bridge. :( tim at ghost:~# ifconfig -a lo0:

Hi, I have a 4.7-RELEASE system. I used the following cvsupfile to update my system: *default host=cvsup2.FreeBSD.org *default base=/usr *default prefix=/usr *default release=cvs *default tag=RELENG_4_8 *default delete use-rel-suffix src-all *default tag=. I then proceeded to do: cd /usr/src make buildworld I got a bunch of errors which occurred when building kdump:

This looks like a very cool feature addition to RELENG_7! Are there any performance penalties that you know of with this built in ? ---Mike At 09:13 PM 7/23/2008, Julian Elischer wrote: >julian 2008-07-24 01:13:22 UTC > > FreeBSD src repository > > Modified files: (Branch: RELENG_7) > contrib/pf/pfctl parse.y > lib/libc/sys

In http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200402260743.IAA18903 it seems RELENG_4 is vulnerable. Is there any work around to a system that has to have ports open ? Version: 1 2/18/2004@03:47:29 GMT >Initial report > <<https://ialert.idefense.com/KODetails.jhtml?irId=207650>https://ialert.idefense.com/KODetails.jhtml?irId=207650; >ID#207650: >FreeBSD Memory Buffer

I want to run a non-global zone as a virtual router and run ipnat inside the non-global zone, however, when I try to enable routing it can''t find route:default or network/ipfilter. I''m using exclusive IP inside the zones and using OpenSolaris 2008.11 build 110. I''ve tried sparse root and whole root zones without success. I''ve read blogs and posts and

Hi, After the option IPFILTER_DEFAULT_BLOCK is specified at kernel conf on FreeBSD 4.8 stable (cvsup'd with tag RELENG_4_8), the machine cannot be ping'd by others on the same network. In addition, the machine cannot ping itself. ping localhost (or 127.0.0.1) -> no route to host ping itself with its own ip address -> no route to host The freebsd box, with an external pppoe

Hi, After the option IPFILTER_DEFAULT_BLOCK is specified at kernel conf on FreeBSD 4.8 stable (cvsup'd with tag RELENG_4_8), the machine cannot be ping'd by others on the same network. In addition, the machine cannot ping itself. ping localhost (or 127.0.0.1) -> no route to host ping itself with its own ip address -> no route to host The freebsd box, with an external pppoe

We're supposed to provide redundant firewall service. I'm wondering if anyone has ever tried to do this and if it's realistic. Basically 2 firewall machines hooked up so if one fails the other will transparently step in. I've googled it to death without much luck. The security issue here lies in that the 2 firewalls can't talk to each other. So if I'm keeping state on

Hi all, Link protection is a new feature we are planning to introduce to Solaris and we would like to solicit your feedback on it. Please see attached document for details.

TB --- 2003-07-21 05:27:28 - starting RELENG_4 tinderbox run for i386/pc98 TB --- 2003-07-21 05:27:28 - checking out the source tree TB --- cd /home/des/tinderbox/RELENG_4/i386/pc98 TB --- /usr/bin/cvs -f -R -q -d/home/ncvs update -Pd -rRELENG_4 src TB --- 2003-07-21 05:33:30 - building world TB --- cd /home/des/tinderbox/RELENG_4/i386/pc98/src TB --- /usr/bin/make -B buildworld >>>

TB --- 2003-10-02 04:00:01 - starting RELENG_4 tinderbox run for alpha/alpha TB --- 2003-10-02 04:00:01 - checking out the source tree TB --- cd /home/des/tinderbox/RELENG_4/alpha/alpha TB --- /usr/bin/cvs -f -R -q -d/home/ncvs update -Pd -rRELENG_4 src TB --- 2003-10-02 04:07:38 - building world TB --- cd /home/des/tinderbox/RELENG_4/alpha/alpha/src TB --- /usr/bin/make -B buildworld >>>