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

    Packets go through, logging is set, but no logs of the traffic

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved General pfSense Questions
    30 Posts 4 Posters 285 Views 4 Watching
    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.
    • S Offline
      silviub @stephenw10
      last edited by

      @stephenw10
      unfortunately there's no way to know that. It's the only one I encountered so far, but that doesn't mean there are not others with the same behavior, that I did not discover.

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

        You're testing this by sending UDP packets to the port right? Does it also fail to log if you actually connect a VPN client to it?

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

          Hmm, with a port-forward like this the default would be for the system to auto-create a linked pass rule based on the forward and it would be labelled as such. This looks like a custom rule you have added separately.

          What does you port forward rule look like? Is it possible it's set to pass?

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • S Offline
            silviub @stephenw10
            last edited by

            @stephenw10 Yes, it does fail when an actual OpenVPN client sends traffic since that's how this issue was discovered initially. Clients were connecting to this - or trying to connect, we would see the traffic in the VM but not in PFSense logs.

            This rule was auto-created but since the description of the rule was empty, it was edited out so when it's logged, we have an idea of what's logged. The rule itself was auto-created, it was just edited afterwards.

            The forwarding policy:

            Disabled: unticket
            No RDR: unticket
            Interface: WAN
            Address Family: IPv4
            Protocol: UDP
            
            Destination: Public IP address (alias) on WAN interface
            Destination port range: OpenVPN
            Redirect Target IP: 10.151.0.5
            Redirect Target Port: OpenVPN
            Description: OpenVPN
            No XMLRPC Sync: not ticket
            NAT Reflection: Pure NAT
            Filter rule asociation: <name of rule associated to this NAT rule>. If I click on "View the filter rule" I get redirected to the rule that doesn't log.
            

            As I said, if you want to take a look, we can have a Zoom / Teams session as it might be easier for you to check it out (not really comfortable to share public IPs and stuff here :D )

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • S Offline
              silviub
              last edited by silviub

              @stephenw10
              coming back with new info: it seems this is NOT the only rule that's affected. Below, I've specifically set a rule on the correct interface (since I'm seeing states next to that rule) to log ANY traffic from 10.41.199.200 (test host) to 10.41.14.99 (another test host). They're connected via an IPSec VTI tunnel, but I don't expect that to change anything. Below, logs from the PFSense and the device on the other end:
              b02e7b2e-45c1-4dcb-a1e5-b2cc0028d9ea-image.png
              125a1ba9-ec73-45a2-9a74-b78489d5aec0-image.png
              The fact that the traffic is stopped by the 2nd firewall is normal, as I haven't added the rule there yet, but the traffic reaches the 2nd firewall, while it's not logged in the PFSense.
              The PFSense rule:
              d2aaf71b-6f9f-4b3a-8dec-49d9c74b5a57-image.png

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

                Hmm, so that rule is on the internal interface those pings are coming in on? They then leave over the VTI tunnel and are blocked on the remote end?

                Is it possible your firewall logs are turning over so fast they are being replaced? Seems unlikely but...

                S 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • S Offline
                  silviub @stephenw10
                  last edited by silviub

                  @stephenw10 Yes, that's the scenario. Pings are coming in on a local / internal interface and leave via the IPSec VTI interface (same for tunnel mode though, so the IPSec interface mode is not influencing it), and are blocked by the other firewall. So the traffic goes through the PFSense, 100%.

                  As for the firewall logs turning over so fast.... It's not a really busy box. I mean yeah, there's traffic via this PFSense but it's not a ton of it, so ..... Anyways, I should see SOMETHING, as the ping was running continuously. So at least 1 packet should have been there when refreshing (multiple times)

                  I've setup a syslog server and will test more today, see if the logs are in there.

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • S Offline
                    silviub
                    last edited by

                    I've setup the remote syslog server, I'm not getting those logs in the syslog server either. So it's not just a problem with showing the logs in the UI.

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

                      Hmm, bizarre! And to be clear this is still only happening on those two rules you have found so far? You can still add other new rules and they log as expected?

                      S 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • S Offline
                        silviub @stephenw10
                        last edited by

                        @stephenw10 Well, no. The rule about the VTI was just added. So a new rule had the same issue. I can just assume this is a global issue, on all / most of the rules, but since there's literarily hundreds of rules, it's quite hard to test that.

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

                          The Filer package can achieve a lot of that.

                          S 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • S Offline
                            silviub @stephenw10
                            last edited by

                            @stephenw10 I'm sorry, I didn't get that?

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

                              Gah! sorry somehow managed to reply to the wrong thread. 🤦

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