Confused about rule
-
@johnpoz if it's copied in the config file and then imported this can happen.
-
@johnpoz
this is a new interface i brought up a few days ago. I dont recall copying from another interface.
If i did copy, then would you think that this is incorrect(buggy) behavior then? The option to copy rules from one interface to another is part of the code but the tracking ID should be changed in the process and it isnt.
I have since recreated the any any rule including the !RFC1918 negate. The rule ID is different now.
This was a very strange one. Thanks for pointing out to double check the tracking ID.The good thing is that at the end of the day, the firewall was doing what it was supposed to do regardless if the metadata about the rule was incorrect.
Firewall: NetGate,Palo Alto-VM,Juniper SRX
Routing: Juniper, Arista, Cisco
Switching: Juniper, Arista, Cisco
Wireless: Unifi, Aruba IAP
JNCIP,CCNP Enterprise -
@michmoor local data fallback, so this a ha pair?
Or that most likely refers to how you logged in, when updated, etc. So you radius auth failed?
-
@johnpoz Not an HA pair. I do have radius set up for local login but i logged in as admin not using my radius account
-
@michmoor this is interesting:
it says it was made on Feb. 14.
-
@rcoleman-netgate The interface is new. I suspect the copied rules (block RFC1918 and permit !RFC1918) were copied over to this new interface.
It seems that in this particular case, the tracking ID was copied over as well.Its the only thing that would make sense in having a duplicate tracking ID.
I just tested to see if i can duplicate it and i cannot. -
Mmm, that should not happen. That's in 2.6? When that rule was created it would not have been though.
-
@stephenw10 I agree steve that this condition should not happen. I gave my best theory and i tested but cant reproduce. Sucks it took me a week to even notice it so i couldve provided accurate steps to what i did but generally if im spinning up a new interface and the access rules are similar i copy the rules from another interface nstead of manually creating the rules from scratch.
Im on 22.05 when i copied the rules, Correct i was on 22.x previously -
Hmm, one thing that can appear like that is if you're looking at old logs and have since updated the ruleset. The rule number to rule description is created when the logs are viewed and that can change. So if you added the pass rule after the block rule or deleted another rule at some point the rule description might show incorrectly. Actual running rule numbers should still be different though.
-
@stephenw10 said in Confused about rule:
The rule number to rule description is created when the logs are viewed and that can change.
Yeah I was thinking the same thing at first - but then he showed his actual rules and the IDs were the same - very strange.
