pi-hole

AndyRH

Curious why your response time was 70 ms

I never noticed the time. Guessing, I would have to say it was not cached and the response from the internet slow. This weekend when I have time I will poke around and make sure it is not a FW delay.
A problem I did not notice until yesterday is pfSense round robins the DNS server it redirects to, I had 2 of 3 down and response from DNS was unreliable. I also discovered a phone game is using a hard coded DNS server different from the phone settings. Kind of a mixed bag. Things not redirected worked just fine.

MoonKnight

@johnpoz
I just fall of the rock here :)
I got my pi-hole working on one of my vlans, VL30, the pihole is there. I manage to redirect VL90 poiting to pihole at VL30. (different subnet)
This this NAT rule:

I made the same rule only for my LAN network, like this:

LAN use this subnet: 10.10.10.0/24
VL30 use this: 10.10.30.0/24 <------ Pi-hole IP: 10.10.30.200
VL90 use this: 172.16.90.0/24

So the question is. Is this the right way to do it. My PI-Hole points to pfsense IP, so pfsense can to the resolving and forwarding to Quad9 IP.

And this is from the query log, log from my UniFi G2 Pro controller. I see it reacting out for google dns 8.8.8.8
I have a redirect rule in pfsense for preventing my IOT devices to talk to other dns then only the one pfsense forwaring to, in this case Quad9.
Maybe I'm terrible wrong, but it is a way to check that?

johnpoz

@MoonKnight I wouldn't use the ! rule myself..

MoonKnight

@johnpoz
If i remove ! noting hits pi-hole from my LAN network.

EDIT:
Looks like I had to disable all my "DNS" rules to get i working with Pihole.
All inside the red circle i have to disable

stephenw10

You need at least some redirect rule to catch anything that's hard coded to use some other DNS server. It doesn't have to be an inverted match rule, it could just match all DNS traffic.

MoonKnight

@stephenw10
Hi,
Well I believe the both rules in the middle are the ones that are redirecting everting else to DNS, The once with 127.0.0.1. So if I change 127.0.0.1 to pi-hole IP, it should be okay then?
And remove the first rule (pi-hole) but the problem could be the second and third rule (destination = LAN address)

stephenw10

Well those are firewall rules. You'd need to make that change on the NAT rules.

MoonKnight

@stephenw10

This is my NAT rules for redirect other DNS back to 127.0.0.1 (inside red circle)
The rule in the top is pi-hole rule I made to redirect all DNS to pi-hole. I hade to disable second rule to make my LAN hit pi-hole.

stephenw10

Are you passing the pihole IP to client to use for DNS via DHCP anyway?

That second rule should do nothing if the first rule is enabled. They both match the same traffic.

MoonKnight

@stephenw10
Yes, I have setup DNS in the DHCP server, so all my clients in LAN got the Pi-Hole IP.

johnpoz

@MoonKnight that second rule has nothing to do with anything.. And should never work with any sane dot client.. One of the major points of dot is to prevent mitm sort of dns tampering.. The dot server would present a cert, and that cert name needs to match the CN of the dot server your talking to, and it should be signed by a CA the dot client trusts.

If some dot client doesn't validate this - then is pretty useless in the sense of what dot is suppose to help accomplish, secure your dns traffic, and actually validate your talking to the dns you want to talk too.

BTW, I am not really aware of any common user "client" that uses dot, that is more a server thing for forwarding, clients normally use doh vs dot. But the same thing comes into play - part of the whole use of tls and certs is validation of who your talking too, redirection to some other thing would defeat part of the reason someone might want to use those protocols.

Unless you knew what dot server some client was wanting to talk too, and setup the certs to present that name to the client, and signed that cert with a ca the client trusts that sort of redirection should fail - if the dot client was actually checking, if the dot client doesn't check - its a pretty shitty client.

MoonKnight

@johnpoz and @stephenw10

Damn, so all my lovely DNS rules are wrong?
All I wanted was to use DoT and redirect all hardcoded devices to use pfsense.
I see lot of devices are using other DNS servers. I don't want that, so I was thinking maybe my DNS rules would prevent that.
I can see in the pfTOP that all, I think all of my devices hits my pfsense IP and 127.0.0.1 on port 53 and 853. And of course Quad9 DNS server I have on my pfsense.
I can't see any traffic on dns 1.1.1.1 or 1.0.0.1 or 8.8.8.8 or 8.8.4.4 etc in the pfTOP. And i do have lot of Iot devices. So i believe my rules are working, but not so sure if I enable Pi-Hole and i have to disable some of my rules. :)

stephenw10

Yes, you can't redirect DoT because the authentication will fail. Clients can still use DoT to pfSense, or the PiHole, directly though.

johnpoz

@MoonKnight you can for sure redirect typical dns on udp/tcp 53.. But dot or doh, even if you could redirect dot.. If the client is sane and validates the cert presented to it by the dot server your redirection wouldn't work.. Unless where you redirected it to matched up with the CN the dot client was wanting to talk to, and it trusted the CA you used to sign the cert.

Doh would have the same sort of problem with the client trusting the cert, but you can not use port to do redirection because doh hides itself on port 443, which the normal https port that pretty much everything on the internet uses..

I pretty much just block all known doh servers IPs, and dot I just block as well.. But that is much easier because it is suppose to use port 853.. And not try and hide itself in my normal https traffic.

As to internally using dot or doh on your network - sure you can do that.. But why? Is your local network hostile? Who would be intercepting or sniffing your dns traffic, other than you?

MoonKnight

@johnpoz & @stephenw10
Thank you, booth of you to take your time and try to explain an old man like me
So I did disable all my DNS rules in my LAN network. I only made one NAT rule: I know about the "Invert Match" but with this enable made my UniFi Controller Gen 2 Pro stop talking with 8.8.8.8. Now it only talks to PI-Hole IP (Am I right? :) )

@johnpoz

But why? Is your local network hostile? Who would be intercepting or sniffing your dns traffic, other than you?

Sometimes I am my own hostile in my own network

Indeed is more easy to get ride of all the rules, but, You know.. the feeling when your are loosing control. It's feels i'm loosing control over all the DNS request from IoT devices or other devices that are hard coded with other DNS servers. But I just need some conformation that my rule now is correct and Pi-Hole its doing his job with pfsense.
Is there a way I cant test this out?

johnpoz

@MoonKnight said in pi-hole:

Is there a way I cant test this out?

Well just look at your pihole logs, do you see queries from these clients?

Do a query to 8.8.8.8 from your device, for something that only resolves locally.. Did it resolve? Then you sure didn't get them 8.8.8.8

example..

pi@pi-ntp:~ $ dig @8.8.8.8 nas.home.arpa

; <<>> DiG 9.11.5-P4-5.1+deb10u9-Raspbian <<>> @8.8.8.8 nas.home.arpa
; (1 server found)
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 2478
;; flags: qr aa rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 1

;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION:
; EDNS: version: 0, flags:; udp: 4096
;; QUESTION SECTION:
;nas.home.arpa.                 IN      A

;; ANSWER SECTION:
nas.home.arpa.          3600    IN      A       192.168.9.10

;; Query time: 0 msec
;; SERVER: 8.8.8.8#53(8.8.8.8)
;; WHEN: Tue Aug 29 11:49:56 CDT 2023
;; MSG SIZE  rcvd: 58

pi@pi-ntp:~ $

There is no possible way 8.8.8.8 could resolve nas.home.arpa ;)

MoonKnight

@johnpoz
Thanks :)

Did a DIG from my UCK G2:

And Pi-Hole i found this:

So everything is OK?

I see my UniFi controller are sending lot of PTR request to 1.1.1.1.in-addr.arp and 8.8.8.8.in-addr.arp <.----- Normally ? It's already on Top Permitted Domains :D

johnpoz

@MoonKnight well as long as that fqdn you queried for is not actually a public domain, then clearly you were intercepted. Also I highly doubt you could get an answer back from any google server in 0 ms ;)

As to why your controller is doing PTR for those IPs - I have no idea, I don't see that in my pihole from my controller.

the query is in-addr.arpa right, you just left off a A, .arp would make no sense..

I can force the query to show up if I manually do a query for that

These are the sorts of things my controller is doing queries for

MoonKnight

@johnpoz

It's an public domain but not public :) Only for valid certificate via Acme. (Using my own public domain as man local domain) But there is now way you can access it from outside :)
Yeah I mean .arpa :)
I can see your controller are doing some crazy stuff too from your ubuntu server. I have the hardware version of the controller from UniFi, probably that's why so much noises, hmmm

You can see when I was trying to push my LAN network to use PI-Hole Still have 2-3 more VLANs to add.

MoonKnight

@johnpoz & @stephenw10
I am baaaccckkk
Sorry to bring this up again. Just woundring about the NAT rule I made. Should I select "Create new associated filter rule" in the Filter rule association? Ore just use NONE ?