similar to: Localhost traffic and ipfw rules

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 ============================================================================= FreeBSD-SA-04:17.procfs Security Advisory The FreeBSD Project Topic: Kernel memory disclosure in procfs and linprocfs Category: core Module: sys Announced:

Hello, i hope this is the right list! I tried making a firewall for my laptop..it wasn't as terribly difficult as i thought it would be but i'm not sure if i forgot anything. And things can always be done better :) I'm not sure what i should've put under incoming connections... what i have put there now is pretty useless because the default is to deny, but should i accept any

>> 3. I'm intrested in blocking kazaa/P2P trafic with IPFW any help in this issue you could possibly block connections at known p2p ports. deny tcp from any to any 6699 step but most of the newer protocols use dynamic ports and in turn, are configurable. so ipfw isn't exactly ideal on it's own for this. -r. -----Original Message----- From: Pons [mailto:pons@gmx.li] Sent:

Hi, Is it possible to integrate SNORT with IPFW. I have an entire network behind an IPFW BRIDGE. Just need IDS capability enabled for the network. Just an hint is enough. Any other way I can achieve this in IPFW. -Sunil Sunder Raj

Dear W.D. Do you understand that by adding the rules into kernel space numbered from zero to sixty five thousand five hundred thirty four you may alter the behavior of the rule number sixty five thousand five hundred thirty five can you please define and list the goals you are trying to achieve by altering default rule in the terms you can both explain and understand. ----- Original Message

Hi peeps, After compiling ipfw into the new 6.2 kernel, and typing "ipfw list", all I get is: "65535 deny ip from any to any" From reading the docs, this might indicate that this is the default rule. (I am certainly protected this way--but can't be very productive ;^) ) By the way, when I run "man ipfw" I get nothing. Using this instead:

Hi there, Is there some way to configure ipfw to do traffic normalizing ("scrubbing", as in ipf for OpenBSD)? Is there any tool to do it for FreeBSD firewalling? I've heard that ipf was ported on current, anything else? TIA, /Dorin. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want. http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools

heya i've been using freebsd's ipfw for quite a while and recently on a new server i've got this issue with ipfw that i can't understand ... something is wrong ... 01000 8042 1947866 allow ip from any to any via fxp0 01010 0 0 allow ip from any to any via lo0 01014 9886 4170269 divert 8668 ip from any to any in via vr0 01015 0 0 check-state 01130 14679 5695969 skipto 1800 ip from

If someone has some free time, can you go over my ipfw config. See if I have any problems, or things i should add. Im not an ipfw expert or anything. Here is the config. add 100 allow all from any to any via lo0 add 110 deny log all from any to 127.0.0.0/8 add 120 deny log ip from 127.0.0.0/8 to any add 00200 check-state add 00250 deny all from any to any frag in via bge0 add 00260 deny

For reasons unknown, any connections to localhost -- tcp, icmp, or udp -- are all originating from my external interface, rl0: $ telnet localhost 25 Trying ::1... Trying 127.0.0.1... telnet: connect to address 127.0.0.1: Can't assign requested address telnet: Unable to connect to remote host IPFW log: Jul 16 12:46:43 octo ipfw: 100 Accept TCP 192.168.1.119:1434 127.0.0.1:25 out via rl0

Hello, I have configured jail for users with sshd ftpd and auth. I started this jail on IP 127.0.0.10(there is an alias on lo0 interface), there was not any bigger problem to start it. But i have a problem with internet in this jail. I can log in to this jail through ssh or ftpd but i can't connect to the internet. I try to set up some kind of nat but it doesn't work. Can anybody help me

>Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 06:04:02 -0800 (PST) >From: Nash Nipples <trashy_bumper@yahoo.com> >To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org >Subject: Re: IPFW: Blocking me out. How to debug? > >Dear W.D. > >oh come on. i have the same problem. Which problem are we talking about? cut and paste problem. >cut and paste logic: > >#!/bin/sh >#1. count packets >#2.

Hi There, I've been having an issue trying to figure out a way to policy route outbound packets from a multihomed machine through the proper interface using IPFW to no avail. I've tried several different incantations of IPFW fwd/forward statements, and none of them seem to do the trick. Basically, I have a host that has multiple Internet connections. This host is running FreeBSD 4.9

I'm facing a problem with accessing a HTTPd (Apache) jail locally. Consider this jail scenario: /etc/hosts: 127.0.0.1 localhost foo.com 172.16.0.1 apache /etc/natd.conf: use_sockets yes same_ports yes unregistered_only yes redirect_port tcp 172.16.0.1:80 80 redirect_port tcp 172.16.0.1:443 443 /etc/firewall.sh ... ${fwcmd} add divert natd all from any to any via ${oif}(IPFW) ... rl0, my

In my recent security email, I got the following errors: cantona.dnswatchdog.com login failures: Aug 20 02:37:19 cantona sshd[9444]: fatal: Write failed: Operation not permitted Aug 20 04:30:42 cantona sshd[16142]: fatal: Write failed: Operation not permitted Aug 20 21:21:51 cantona sshd[45716]: fatal: Write failed: Operation not permitted So three questions: What is it? Should I be worried?

On Sat, 29 May 2004 12:00:52 -0700 (PDT), <freebsd-security-request@freebsd.org> wrote: Hello ! Today i see in snort logs : [**] [1:528:4] BAD-TRAFFIC loopback traffic [**] [Classification: Potentially Bad Traffic] [Priority: 2] 06/07-09:44:39.044590 127.0.0.1:80 -> 10.6.148.173:1566 TCP TTL:128 TOS:0x0 ID:577 IpLen:20 DgmLen:40 ***A*R** Seq: 0x0 Ack: 0x75830001 Win: 0x0 TcpLen:

I'm not a master of the internet RFCs, but I do believe icmp messages have different types. Now to enable traceroute for IPFW, I might put in a rule like this: ipfw add pass icmp from any to me However, how would I make a rule to limit icmp messages to just those used by traceroute? Can the messages be distinguished as such? A dynamic rule that exists only for the duration of a traceroute

The man page gives this example, however, when I attempt to use it, it seems to block the whole set? Could someone tell me what's going wrong here please. Thanks heaps.. This works, ${fwcmd} add deny log all from any to 203.1.96.1 in via ${oif} This blocks the whole IP block, not just the list? ${fwcmd} add deny log all from any to 203.1.96.0/24{2,6-25,27-154,156-19

Hi security@ list, In my self written, large ipfw rule set, I had something that passed http to allow me to browse most but not all remote sites. For years I assumed the few sites I had difficulty with were cases pppoed MTU != 1500, from not having installed tcpmssd on my 4.*-RELEASE, but then running 6.1-RELEASE I realised that wasn't the problem. http://www.web.de Still failed, &

Hi, first i must tell you, that my english is not the best, i hav learned my english from manpages and documentation. Please excuse this. I have setted up a Box w/FreeBSD 4.7-RELEASE for connecting to the w3 through an DSL/ATM-Connection. Now i know the stateful handling of firewall-rules under linux with iptables.In the second i have understand that FreeBSD comes with the netfilter-extensions.