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

    Feature ideas: rule grouping, changelogs / notes

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Firewalling
    4 Posts 2 Posters 2.0k 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.
    • O Offline
      owczi
      last edited by

      Hi guys,

      I've been using pfSense as a perimeter bridging firewall in production for 6 over months now and I'm more than happy with it, not a single issue. I have a suggestion though, that could make pfSense administration even easier, especially in larger companies (and I think pfSense definitely is on it's way to get into those). As the number of firewall rules grows and when you have multiple admins, and there are lots of changes made, especially those that add big batches of new rules. Even with a very strict naming and description scheme, you will eventually find it harder and harder to manage the rules - and even browsing the rule list will become unpleasant.

      What could really simplify this, is rule groups. You could still keep all rules in the same place, but you could also categorize rules.
      Say, the 200 rules I have I could divide into:

      • services (servers in dmz behind the firewall)
      • security (deny RFC1918, bogons, p2p catcher etc)
      • access (remote site to site VPN peers, remote networks belonging to the same company etc.).
        Even if nested groups were not possible, it would still be great. However if nesting groups was implemented, it could be further categorized i.e. access/mail/ access/ftp etc.
        Since the configuration is XML, I think this would be relatively easy to implement (though I know it's always easier said than done). So ideally you'd get a tree-like list of groups with [+] signs to fold-unfold.

      The other idea is a comment or changelog entry field to be filled in when you press the "apply" button, and then being able to view the changelog. Since pfSense doesn't support multiple logins, you would probably have to enter your name as well. With this feature, you could add your internal change request IDs to the logs etc. So ideally the log would consist of:
      timestamp + user name  + comment + changes made [ generated by pfSense i.e. Alias changed, Alias added, Rule changed, Rule added ].
      Apart from the changelog fields appearing automatically upon "Apply", there should  also be an option of manually logging changes, just a "Log a configuration change" link.

      Thanks for all the good work on pfSense, Im waiting impatiently for 2.0 ( especially gui for link aggregation ).

      Regards,
      owczi

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • GruensFroeschliG Offline
        GruensFroeschli
        last edited by

        Multiple users are already possible in 2.0.

        I'm not sure if you could already do the grouping you're suggesting with aliases.

        ie:
        The first rule would be the security rule.
        Have a security-source-alias, and a security-destination-alias and add all the sources and destinations you want to block to their respective alias.
        The same for the servers.

        But i see your point that with a LOT of rules the granularity of the alias system might not be good enough.

        I think there was already a bounty for a package to track changes not only of the firewall but of all the changes you make on the pfSense.
        This would probably be what you want.

        We do what we must, because we can.

        Asking questions the smart way: http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • O Offline
          owczi
          last edited by

          Hi,

          Thanks for the info. I am using aliases extensively - actually, apart from only a few, I don't have a single rule not using aliases, and it does make my life much easier. And yes, I'm talking about a LOT of rules. One deployment is a perimeter firewall, but I want to deploy another as firewall filtering traffic between remote VPNs - multiple customer sites, company branches, and the internal network. I have it in order, using Cisco only, but I want to migrate this all to pfSense just for easier management. After migrating the whole lot, that would be over 2000 rules - this is quite a specific environment with lots of exotic types of connectivity. In this case I think you get my point:

          Inside interface: Rule group: Customer XX outbound - 30 rules using aliases
          Outside interface: Rule group: Customer XX inbound - 15 rules using aliases

          Regards,

          owczi

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • GruensFroeschliG Offline
            GruensFroeschli
            last edited by

            btw: this is thread about tracking changes:
            http://forum.pfsense.org/index.php/topic,9119.0.html

            We do what we must, because we can.

            Asking questions the smart way: http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

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