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

Portknocking-Daemon-GUI or Package –> {CANCELED}

Expired/Withdrawn Bounties
9
42
25.9k
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.
  • H
    heiko
    last edited by Mar 28, 2007, 7:31 PM

    Excuse me, the german date translation is for other people abnormal, i think..

    The offer will be dropped at Year = 2007 ; Month = Mai, Day = 01

    I hope, this is undestandable.
    Greetings
    heiko

    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
    • S
      sullrich
      last edited by Mar 28, 2007, 8:16 PM

      I will be taking this one on as soon as you declare time based rules a success.

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • H
        heiko
        last edited by Mar 28, 2007, 8:57 PM

        OK, i am await for finished time based ruled system.Then we could arrange "portknocking"
        greetings
        heiko

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • H
          heiko
          last edited by Mar 29, 2007, 10:30 AM

          Hello Scott,
          one Extension: I want to blocking countries and i know from another thread, that this is implemented in HEAD. Can you backported this to a productive PFSENSE-RELENG-SNAPSHOT Version?

          Portknocking = 500 €
          Blocking-Countries= 250 €

          Do you disposed to this extension. It would be very nice?

          I know, i am a nag…. :)
          Greetings from Germany
          heiko

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • S
            sullrich
            last edited by Mar 29, 2007, 3:21 PM

            No, I am affraid not.  We are about to enter beta status as soon as the final Time Based Rules bugs are fixed.

            Sorry!  Maybe on next version.

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • H
              heiko
              last edited by Mar 29, 2007, 9:32 PM Mar 29, 2007, 9:18 PM

              OK, thanks, then we can arrange the port knocking when the timebased rules are finished

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • J
                JeGr LAYER 8 Moderator
                last edited by Apr 5, 2007, 7:52 AM

                Don't want to disturb the thread but I'm curious for what you (or people generally) want to use portknocking for and (if that's generally possible doing with pfsense/freebsd/pf) if authpf wouldn't be a better/other approach to the desired result. Coming from the OpenBSD side I used authpf for quite a few thingies, people want portknocking for, so I thought I should maybe throw this in here.

                Greets Grey

                Don't forget to upvote 👍 those who kindly offered their time and brainpower to help you!

                If you're interested, I'm available to discuss details of German-speaking paid support (for companies) if needed.

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • S
                  sullrich
                  last edited by Apr 5, 2007, 5:28 PM

                  Yes it is possible: http://doorman.sourceforge.net/

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • S
                    sullrich
                    last edited by Apr 7, 2007, 8:13 PM

                    Looks like doorman will not be a suitable package as it requires a client to do the knocking….  Need to find a package that works with PF and does not require a client.

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • H
                      heiko
                      last edited by Apr 7, 2007, 8:34 PM

                      i agree with that. The project is on sourceforge not really active, i think?

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • C
                        cmb
                        last edited by Apr 8, 2007, 12:50 AM Apr 8, 2007, 12:48 AM

                        Every port knocking daemon is going to require a client. It could be something as simple as a batch file/shell script that telnets to several ports, but they all need a client of some sort. It's no different from OpenVPN, in that it requires a client that we don't provide.

                        I say start with doorman, if it doesn't work for some technical or compatibility reason, move on to something else.

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • B
                          BuddhaChu
                          last edited by Apr 8, 2007, 2:34 AM Apr 8, 2007, 2:27 AM

                          Doorman requires a specific client in that it transmits the knock in one UDP packet on one port and doesn't knock on several ports in certain order (the way most "normal" portknocking setups work).

                          My point being that Joe Blow just can't grab any old portknocking client…it would need to do the following:

                          This particular implementation deviates a bit from his original proposal, in that the doorman watches for only a single UDP packet.  To get the doorman to open up, the packet must contain an MD5 hash which correctly hashes a shared secret, salted with a 32-bit random number, the identifying user or group-name, and the requested service port-number.

                          I guess if you enable this package in your pfSense box, you better be prepared to use a specific client.

                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • H
                            heiko
                            last edited by Apr 8, 2007, 8:38 AM

                            Hmm, would it be better if i cancel this bounty and we say "no solution is safe and required a specific client"??
                            If Portknocking under BSD/pf is not possible or the solution is not safety so i´m doubtful to create a solution for pfsense?!

                            A portknocking package is nice but not by hook or by crook!!

                            What do you think Scott? I don´t know? :'(
                            Greetings
                            heiko

                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • B
                              BuddhaChu
                              last edited by Apr 8, 2007, 11:30 AM

                              Don't cancel it on account of what I said.  :(

                              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                              • S
                                sullrich
                                last edited by Apr 8, 2007, 6:24 PM

                                I think you should not listen to the back seat drivers.  Let me keep digging around for a solution.  I have been trying to get knockd ported from Linux and am about 60% done.

                                If you have a 3-4 knock key, ie:

                                telnet ip 945
                                telnet ip 5678
                                telnet ip 1234
                                telnet ip 4756

                                Then I don't see how much this will hurt.  Besides, what exactly are you planning on exposing once you knock?  The webConfigurator or possibly SSH?

                                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                • H
                                  heiko
                                  last edited by Apr 8, 2007, 7:54 PM

                                  I set the Bounty for the portknocking feature to

                                  1000 €

                                  Greetings
                                  Heiko

                                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                  • D
                                    DanielSHaischt
                                    last edited by Apr 8, 2007, 8:18 PM

                                    Just to document what I've found about port knocking so far:

                                    research paper:
                                    http://www.runtux.com/files/download/portknock.4.pdf

                                    fwknop - promissing but Linux based:
                                    http://www.cipherdyne.org/fwknop/

                                    trapdoor2 - may work out of the box on BSD:
                                    http://oss.linbit.com/trapdoor2/

                                    webknocking - an alternative approach in some kind of an early stage:
                                    http://www.webknocking.de/semaphor.php?item=webknocking_en

                                    Reverse Remote Shell - Very interesting but needs a client:
                                    http://www.cycom.se/dl/rrs

                                    and of course:
                                    http://www.portknocking.org/view/implementations

                                    Mit freundlichen Gruessen / With kind regards
                                    DAn.I.El S. Haischt

                                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                    • S
                                      sullrich
                                      last edited by Apr 9, 2007, 12:11 AM

                                      I will continue porting knockd over to FreeBSD.  It seems to be the nicest of the bunch.

                                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                      • C
                                        cmb
                                        last edited by Apr 9, 2007, 1:39 AM

                                        From what I can see, knockd appears to just allow you to setup a sequence of ports, and any old connection to those ports will work. Well….while it's widely compatible, it's next to worthless. Unless you change the ports and sequence every time somehow, it's highly insecure. First time you use it on a hot spot, or if someone intercepts your traffic some other way, you're compromised. Granted it wouldn't be the only security measure you would rely upon, but there are much more secure ways of doing this.

                                        doorman is nice in that intercepting the traffic in transit doesn't completely eliminate the security provided. See the quote in BuddhaChu's post above. The only way I can think of to do this securely will require a client like doorman.

                                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                        • Y
                                          yoda715
                                          last edited by Apr 10, 2007, 5:54 PM Apr 9, 2007, 1:40 AM

                                          From a security standpoint, a port knocking daemon that requires a client is the best option.

                                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                          25 out of 42
                                          • First post
                                            25/42
                                            Last post
                                          Copyright 2025 Rubicon Communications LLC (Netgate). All rights reserved.