VLAN an Firewall rule not matching
-
@interessierter did you clear states after you created a block rule?
States are evaluated before rules, so if there was an existing state, that state would allow it before your rules are even looked at.
I don't see any triggers on that rule.. It shows 0/0 for states - so it was never evaluated.
Do you have any rules in floating that would allow the traffic?
-
@johnpoz I have found this in the logs. It seems like all traffic will be blocked, only the connection to 192.168.1.30 is working. Why is that threaded differently?
-
@interessierter the other rules on this vlan. No floating rules
-
@interessierter well your rule is not triggering, again you have a 0/0 for states..
You created your alias wrong maybe..
Rules are evaluated top down, first rule to trigger wins.. no other rules are evaluated. If default deny rule is being trigger then non of your rules above it either block or allowed were triggered.
As to that lan rule anything from the firewall itself are you natting this vlan for some reason?
-
@johnpoz The Alias is correct:
OK the Block rule was not on the first position, but it does not make any difference. Access is still possible.
What I found is here some old NAT rules from a TEST for VPN:
-
@interessierter said in VLAN an Firewall rule not matching:
Why are those IP ranges identical and why LAN has a triangle. Maybe your NAT rules are wrong? Better show all the NAT rules and Portforwarding too.
Or start with a fresh install.
-
The last 4 lines are created from pfnblocker, is that the reason?
-
@interessierter said in VLAN an Firewall rule not matching:
@johnpoz The Alias is correct:
OK the Block rule was not on the first position, but it does not make any difference. Access is still possible.
What I found is here some old NAT rules from a TEST for VPN:
I have removed and deleted all VPN and IPSEC configuration however this rules are still there. And this NAT WAN defintily include the subnets that I use for VLAN
-
@interessierter any interface that has a gateway and considered a "wan" would auto create outbound nat rules when your in auto mode.
You can see only wan as outbound nat auto.
I then created a gateway on one of my test interfaces - and it auto created the test outbound nat
If you have some interface with a gateway set, it would create auto outbound nats. If you want to get rid of those you would need to remove this gateway your no longer using.
edit: BTW this firewall entry is the firewall itself creating traffic, not pfsense allowing traffic from 1 vlan to another
-
@johnpoz I have a second interface thats right, its a power Beam connection that use 10.224.1.14 as IP address, so thats not the subnet of my vlan.
Yes I have my used subnet in the NAT rule, but I don t know why
-
@interessierter just saying that is why you have auto outbound listed. Any interface that can be used as wan (ie has a gateway) with auto outbound nat will be seen.
-
@johnpoz But the seperate network (power beam) use 10.224.1.14/28, so it does not overlap with my networks 10.40.1.99/24.
Also the overlapping subnet is not only in the power beam NAT, it s also in the WAN source list. I still don t get why he list the IPs here.
So what is the solution? Disable the automatic Nating ?
-
@interessierter nobody said it overlapped?
edit: as to solution for what? You can have more than 1 wan, routing will just use normal routing via the default gateway or other routes you have setup, or policy routing via the firewall rules.
-
@johnpoz I plan to have 4 different VLANS, and the first vlan should be a iot Vlan that only allow Internet access. Right now this nating route route to my "main" network so the separation does not make sense.
-
@interessierter you lost me..
Your traffic is not matching from the last you posted, the firewall rule shows 0/0
The other firewall entry you listed was firewall generating traffic.
If you say you can get to this IP from another vlan.. It wouldn't have anything to do with outbound nat, port forwards could be.. But I don't see any portforwards on your lan that would match that traffic.
If your saying your client can get to that IP, maybe its taking a different path... Maybe its on the same L2 and you have the client with the wrong mask?
-
@johnpoz Yes maybe I m lost.
The main network is 192.168.1.0/24, the VLAN 10.40.23.99/24
The Client (mobile phone) is connected with a Access Point, the SSID is tagged with 4000, the switch have a configuration as hybrid port, and the tags 1000,2000,3000,4000,1 is configured. Than the switch connect to pfsense with the same config.
As I can see the allow of the connection from the 10.40.23/24 network to 192.168.1.0/24 in the pfsense log I guess, that the routing must be happening here and not before.
Here a post again of my port forwardings, that also does not contain any network that is in question here:
-
@interessierter said in VLAN an Firewall rule not matching:
As I can see the allow of the connection from the 10.40.23/24 network to 192.168.1.0/24 in the pfsense log I guess
where?
Here?
The allowed there is because the traffic was generated by pfsense.. There are rules that let the firewall go where it wants..
[21.05.2-RELEASE][admin@sg4860.local.lan]/root: pfctl -sr | grep "let out" pass out inet all flags S/SA keep state allow-opts label "let out anything IPv4 from firewall host itself" pass out inet6 all flags S/SA keep state allow-opts label "let out anything IPv6 from firewall host itself" -
@johnpoz Yes but to be honest I don t know what rule that should be? How does such a rule look like?
-
@interessierter I just showed you what the rule looks like ;)
Its a hidden rule.
You can view all the rules via
https://docs.netgate.com/pfsense/en/latest/firewall/pf-ruleset.htmlThere are a few hidden rules, mostly to keep users from shooting themselves in the foot ;) Common example of these is when you enable dhcp server on an interface, rules are created (hidden) that make sure dhcp will work.
notice those rules are pass "out" rules, which is why you see the little black triangle on the firewall entry.
What I would look into is why your rule is not triggering? Do you still show 0/0 for the states on your block 192_netz rule? You could look in your tables under the diagnotic menu to make sure that table is showing your 192.168.1/24 network.
Possible your rules have not be loaded?
-
