similar to: how to configure a FreeBSD firewall to pass IPSec?

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 ->

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! 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

[ -netters, please Cc me or security@ with replies. ] I'm running into trouble integrating dynamic racoon-based IPSec into a network with ipfw and natd. I need to be able to allow VPN access from any address from authenticated clients. I've got the dynamic VPN working, with racoon negotiating SAs and installing SPs, but the problem is that I can't tell whether an incoming packet on

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.

hi i have a problem with my icmp, i have a router that performs nat. i cannot ping to internet hosts from more than one stations situated behind NAT at once. if i want to ping from another station i have to stop the ping that was initiated from the first host, and after a few seconds i can ping from another station.i've checked firewll and i have no ipfw rules that could stop icmp traffic.

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

Hi All, I currently have setup a site to site vpn using racoon on my freebsd firewall. All is well there and I can connect through the vpn when I am on the firewall and get the connection fine. Now I want to be able to connect from other machines through the firewall - this is where I come unstuck, the ipsec policy allows for my external address range to connect through the vpn, but then I would

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

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'm forwarding this to security@, as I'm getting no replies on ipfw@. Hope it's relevant enough for you :( ---Original Message----- From: owner-freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org [mailto:owner-freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Erik Paulsen Skålerud Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 1:02 AM To: ipfw@freebsd.org Subject: Question about logging. Sorry for asking this, It's probably been

Hi all! Short question: could anyone point me to documents regarding topics: jails! & nat & (ipfw|ip tables) - I'm in process to build a new system... Planned layout: NET---router/nat-----gateway:freebsd5.x/nat--------inner net | | | | | L- apache/php (lo_alias1) | L------ mail server (lo_alias2)

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

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

Well, after working through the various options it looked like MPD would be my best bet here. I've got it sort of working, but there's obviously some tweaky I'm missing here. Recap of the scenario: Full class C of static IPs segmented into 3 networks. Outside, DMZ, Inside. Trying to get remote Windows users through securely to the Inside. Remote users have dynamic IPs.

>> 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:

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

I will shortly be replacing a couple of proprietary VPN boxes with a FreeBSD solution. Section 10.10 of the Handbook has a detailed description of how to do this. However I remember a lot of discussion about a year ago about whether the gif interface was necessary to set up VPNs like this or whether it was just a convenience, for "getting the routing right". A number of people said