Netgate Discussion Forum
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Search
    • Register
    • Login

    Source address not NATed during OpenVPN startup?

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved General pfSense Questions
    25 Posts 2 Posters 2.4k Views
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • stephenw10S
      stephenw10 Netgate Administrator
      last edited by

      Mmm, if if was NATing to the LAN IP or using the OBN rules at all you would see it in the created states.

      Since it's being passed by a state opened on LAN you could try adding a block rule on LAN to prevent it as a workaround.

      Steve

      B 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • B
        bPsdTZpW @stephenw10
        last edited by

        @stephenw10 said in Source address not NATed during OpenVPN startup?:

        Mmm, if if was NATing to the LAN IP or using the OBN rules at all you would see it in the created states.

        Since it's being passed by a state opened on LAN you could try adding a block rule on LAN to prevent it as a workaround.

        Steve

        What block rule could I use? From the point of view of the LAN interface, the packets are perfectly OK (src:LAN device, dest:internet).

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • stephenw10S
          stephenw10 Netgate Administrator
          last edited by

          It's source: LANaddress destination: Internet though and it's outbound which should never happen.

          You want to make it as specific as possible so I'd use a floating, quick, outbound rule, source: LANaddress destination: some-test-address. Make sure that does something useful and does block expected traffic before changing the destination to some thing wider.

          Steve

          B 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • B
            bPsdTZpW @stephenw10
            last edited by

            @stephenw10 said in Source address not NATed during OpenVPN startup?:

            It's source: LANaddress destination: Internet though and it's outbound which should never happen.

            You want to make it as specific as possible so I'd use a floating, quick, outbound rule, source: LANaddress destination: some-test-address. Make sure that does something useful and does block expected traffic before changing the destination to some thing wider.

            Steve

            I think I see. I already have a rule like this, and it doesn't work. From the original post:

            I have put various "reject" floating rules on outbound WAN [by which I meant floating, WAN, outbound] to prevent these packets from exiting [1]...[1] e.g. action:block, quick, interface:WAN_IGB0, direction:out, family:IPV4+IPV6, protocol:any, source:RFC1918, destination:any, extra options:log, no advanced options.

            I also tried putting such a rule on the LAN interface (out, reject, quick, src RFC1918, dest <test IP>) and, as expected, it did nothing.

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • stephenw10S
              stephenw10 Netgate Administrator
              last edited by

              Hmm, check the actual state as it appears in the state table. Try using pfctl -vvss

              If it creates a state it should be possible to add a rule that prevents it.

              Steve

              B 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • B
                bPsdTZpW @stephenw10
                last edited by bPsdTZpW

                @stephenw10 said in Source address not NATed during OpenVPN startup?:

                Hmm, check the actual state as it appears in the state table. Try using pfctl -vvss

                If it creates a state it should be possible to add a rule that prevents it.

                Steve

                So after the bad packets have passed, pfctl -vvss gives many states of this form:

                all tcp <website IP>:443 <- <LAN IP>:64970       CLOSED:SYN_SENT
                   [0 + 16777216]  [1164774331 + 33554432]
                   age 00:01:20, expires in 00:00:40, 1:1 pkts, 52:80 bytes, rule 122
                   id: 4c80166200000000 creatorid: c79f1419 gateway: 0.0.0.0
                   origif: igb1
                

                which presumably correspond to some of the bad packets.

                However, there are also a few state pairs that appear to correspond to working, NATed packets. The first state of the pair is very similar to the bad state, above, so I don't see how I could filter on it:

                all tcp <website IP>:443 <- <LAN IP>:64972       TIME_WAIT:TIME_WAIT
                   [4088558557 + 132096] wscale 7  [1887699560 + 1282998272] wscale 8
                   age 00:01:20, expires in 00:01:13, 268:128 pkts, 27167:143271 bytes, rule 122
                   id: 4d80166200000000 creatorid: c79f1419 gateway: 0.0.0.0
                   origif: igb1
                
                all tcp <WAN IP>:32245 (<LAN IP>:64972) -> <website IP>:443       ESTABLISHED:ESTABLISHED
                   [3162374760 + 8323072] wscale 8  [4088558557 + 132096] wscale 7
                   age 00:01:20, expires in 23:59:24, 268:128 pkts, 27167:143271 bytes, rule 74
                   id: 4e80166200000000 creatorid: c79f1419 gateway: <WAN gateway>
                   origif: igb0
                

                This really seems like a bug.

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • stephenw10S
                  stephenw10 Netgate Administrator
                  last edited by

                  It does. The only way I could possibly see anything sourced from the LAN IP itself would be some sort of proxy running. So Squid, HAProxy or NAT reflection in NAT+Proxy mode.

                  What is rule 122 in your ruleset?

                  Steve

                  B 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • B
                    bPsdTZpW @stephenw10
                    last edited by bPsdTZpW

                    @stephenw10 said in Source address not NATed during OpenVPN startup?:

                    It does.

                    The only way I could possibly see anything sourced from the LAN IP itself would be some sort of proxy running. So Squid, HAProxy or NAT reflection in NAT+Proxy mode.

                    Nope, nope, and nope. The setup is quite vanilla. I have one package: service_watchdog.

                    What is rule 122 in your ruleset?

                    The only rule having any such number in the output of pfctl -vvsa is

                    @122(0) block drop in log quick on igb0 inet6 proto udp from any to any port = nameserver label "USER_RULE: Ports to monitor" ridentifier 1628204890
                      [ Evaluations: 0         Packets: 0         Bytes: 0           States: 0     ]
                      [ Inserted: pid 61558 State Creations: 0     ]
                    

                    which makes not the least bit of sense. This is an inbound WAN block/log rule I use to see how many attempts at common ports the bad guys are making. Am I reading the numbers wrong?

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • stephenw10S
                      stephenw10 Netgate Administrator
                      last edited by

                      Mmm, indeed. Can you see what rule 122 is or was when the OpenVPN is up?

                      This starts to look like a stale state somehow.

                      B 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • B
                        bPsdTZpW @stephenw10
                        last edited by

                        @stephenw10 said in Source address not NATed during OpenVPN startup?:

                        Mmm, indeed. Can you see what rule 122 is or was when the OpenVPN is up?

                        That rule is from after OpenVPN came up. I don't know what the numbering was before it came up; it would be tricky to get; I'd probably need to write a script.

                        This starts to look like a stale state somehow.

                        Well, I did find that setting Reset All States in System/Advanced/Networking reduces (but does not zero) the number of bad packets.

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • First post
                          Last post
                        Copyright 2025 Rubicon Communications LLC (Netgate). All rights reserved.