similar to: ipfw or ipf w/stateful behavior

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 ->

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

>> 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, I need to know what the implications are to make use of the hosts.allow file on a FreeBSD Production Server (ISP Setup)? The reason I'm asking, is that I've recently decommisioned a Linux SendMail Server to a FreeBSD Exim Server, but with no Firewall (IPTABLES) yet. Besides the fact that it only runs EXIM and Apache, is it necessary to Configure rc.Firewall? or can I only make use of

Hi, I am using IPFW on FreeBSD 4.11 I am facing two problems: - SSH sessions timeout after a while - When I run "/sbin/ipfw -q -f flush" in the rules script all connection get reset (and I am thrown out of the box). Is this standard functioning of ipfw or do I need to change any configuration? Thanks, Siddhartha

Hi all: I have strange probelm with rc.conf. I set up ipfw (compiled into kernel) on freebsd-5.4 and it doesn't seem to load ipfw rulesets (it uses default ruleset 65335 locking out everything). I have to do "sh /etc/ipfw.rules" in order to load the rulesets, once I did that, I can access the box from remote locations here is my rc.conf: host# more /etc/rc.conf

I've had ipf working on a few 5.3 servers for quite awhile. Not too long ago some developers had to do some coding work and were coming from dynamic IP's. I (reluctantly) opened up SSH to the world. Immediately I started seeing the attacks where bots of some sort would try to break in with a variety of different users. So, I (thought) I closed it up again and told the developers to use a

I don't think I'm trying to do anything amazing, but IPFW's logging features are giving me a real headache. I can't find much in the archives either, but I find it hard to believe others havne't found this too. My rule: add 100 allow log tcp from any to <my IP> <ports> limit src-addr 2 I want connecting parties to be able to form no more than 2 connection. This

Hi all. I recently turned net.inet.udp.log_in_vain on on some of my boxen and have been seeing UDP connection attempts to port 67 on the local host. This initially seemed odd, as the target ip addres was indeed that of a DHCP-configured interface and the source address was that of my DHCP server. However, it turns out this is totally valid, as dhclient(8) does not bind(2) on the bootpc port but

does anyone what is the ipfw equivalent line for this one? rdr fxp0 external_ip_addres/32 port 69 -> 192.168.66.3 port 69 udp i use a tftpd server behind a nat and i want to redirect all trafic coming from internet on port 69 to the tftpd server 10x for help __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around

We have 10 SuperMicro PDSMi+ 5015M-MTs that are panic'ing every few days. This started shortly after upgrade from 6.2-RELEASE to 6.3-RELEASE with freebsd-update. Other than switching to a debugging kernel, a little sysctl tuning, and patching with freebsd-update, they are stock. The debugging kernel was built from source that is also being patched with freebsd-update. These systems are

I've been using ipfw for a while to create a router with NAT and packet filtering, but have never combined it with stateful filtering, instead using things like "established" to accept incoming TCP packets which are part of a conversation initiated from the "inside". I'd like to move to using keep-state/check-state to get tighter filtering and also to allow outgoing

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:

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

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

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?

I hesitate to call this a "bug" as I don't know all the history behind the ipfw2 decisions, so let me toss this out there and see I'm just missing something. Overview ======== The negated operator, "not recv any" was taken to mean "any packet never received by an interface" believed to be equivalent to "any packet that originated on the current

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 recently did something like this. I have a webserver in a jail that > needs to talk to a database, and the webserver is the only thing that > should talk to the databse. > My solution was to use 2 jails: one for the webserver, and another for the > database. > Jail 1: > * runs webserver > * binds to real interface with real, routable IP > Jail 2: > *

I have a FreeBSD box acting as a firewall and NAT gateway I would like to set it up to transparently pass IPSec packets -- I have an IPSec VPN client running on another machine, connecting to a remote network. Is there a way to do this? I can't find any hints in the man pages.