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

    Creating a rule to bypass pfBlocker

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Firewalling
    20 Posts 5 Posters 8.3k 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.
    • chpalmerC
      chpalmer
      last edited by

      And remember- anytime you click "Save" on the pfblocker screen it will move its rules back to the top on the firewall page.

      Triggering snowflakes one by one..
      Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-4590T CPU @ 2.00GHz on an M400 WG box.

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • P
        pftdm007
        last edited by

        Hmmm..  doesnt work.

        I double checked my schedule, it seems OK to me.

        I double checked the Alias, it is set to "Host(s)" with the FQDN addresses such as news.supernews.com.

        I double checked the Traffic shaper > Limiter, and I have 2 limiter rules: one for incoming traffic, one for outgoing.  Both are enabled and their rates are specified.

        Right now I did not create any custom rules in LAN. pfBlocker created its own stuff but thats it.  Earlier you had mentioned:

        If the case is b) then pfblocker has nothing to do with that and you need to check your LAN firewall rules.

        But before I installed pfBlocker, all was fine with the usenet servers.  As a matter of fact, if I didable pofblocker, I can connect to the servers.  I have even created a duplicate of the allowedaliases rule in the LAN list of rules and put it at the top before pofblocker's rules.  Not helping either.

        In the firewall logs I see:

        pf: 192.168.0.101.60025 > 178.22.82.40.5563: Flags [s], cksum 0x45cd (correct), seq 3250693445, win 5840, options [mss 1460,sackOK,TS val 793546639 ecr 0,nop,wscale 6], length 0
        
        Is this log entry relevant?
        [/s]
        
        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • N
          Nachtfalke
          last edited by

          Do you use pfblocker on LAN or on WAN or on both?
          In general you only use this on WAN - but probably you can use it on LAN, too.

          Can you post you actual WAN and LAN rules?

          For your allowedalias - you should enable the firewall log and check all relevant IPs and their DNS name to make sure you really got all the IPs in your alias. I suppose that "news.supernews.com" is the only URL needed.

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • P
            pftdm007
            last edited by

            I am using pfBlocker on WAN only. I will confirm when I get back home tonight but I am 99.99999% sure..

            WAN rules I already posted in one of my posts above.  Hasnt changed.  LAN rules are identical (with the newly created allowedaliases rule on top) but other than that, its the pfblocker rules.  Again I will post a screenshot tonight.

            I have enabled the FW logs for allowedalias.  There are 4 usenet servers to be able to connect to.  In the alias for these servers, I added all 4.

            All I see in the logs are similar messages as posted before, with the IP address changing all the time (resolving to a cloud of servers I guess…).  Thats it.  I dont know how to interpret these messages.  The IP in bold below is the usenet server I am trying to connect to.  This IP changes from time to time.

            pf: 192.168.0.101.60025 > 178.22.82.40.5563: Flags, cksum 0x45cd (correct), seq 3250693445, win 5840, options [mss 1460,sackOK,TS val 793546639 ecr 0,nop,wscale 6], length 0

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • P
              pftdm007
              last edited by

              Attached are screenshots of both LAN & WAN rulesets.

              THis is what I see in pfsense's logs (firewall) when I try to connect to either one of the 4 servers:

              Server 1 (eunews.blocknews.net):

              pf: 192.168.0.101.44670 > 178.22.82.42.5563: Flags [s], cksum 0x417f (correct), seq 2814321279, win 5840, options [mss 1460,sackOK,TS val 36477375 ecr 0,nop,wscale 6], length 0
              
              Server 2 (news.eu.supernews.com):
              [code]pf: 192.168.0.101.53238 > 138.199.67.30.563: Flags [s], cksum 0x6809 (correct), seq 927555493, win 5840, options [mss 1460,sackOK,TS val 36359922 ecr 0,nop,wscale 6], length 0
              
              Server 3 (news.supernews.com): [b]WORKED[/b]
              [b]Nothing appeared in Firewall logs[/b]
              
              Server 4 (usnews.blocknews.net):
              [code]pf: 192.168.0.101.34235 > 198.186.190.126.563: Flags [s], cksum 0x439c (correct), seq 2491495109, win 5840, options [mss 1460,sackOK,TS val 36460013 ecr 0,nop,wscale 6], length 0
              
              ![ISS1.jpg](/public/_imported_attachments_/1/ISS1.jpg)
              ![ISS1.jpg_thumb](/public/_imported_attachments_/1/ISS1.jpg_thumb)
              ![ISS2.jpg](/public/_imported_attachments_/1/ISS2.jpg)
              ![ISS2.jpg_thumb](/public/_imported_attachments_/1/ISS2.jpg_thumb)[/s][/code][/s][/code][/s]
              
              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • chpalmerC
                chpalmer
                last edited by

                dangerous setup there.

                Triggering snowflakes one by one..
                Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-4590T CPU @ 2.00GHz on an M400 WG box.

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • P
                  pftdm007
                  last edited by

                  @chpalmer:

                  dangerous setup there.

                  Any way you can explain why??  What I am doing wrong?  The rules you see were either:

                  created by a normal pfsense installation
                  created by pfblocker (pfblocker…)
                  created by me (allowedaliases)

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • jimpJ
                    jimp Rebel Alliance Developer Netgate
                    last edited by

                    @lpallard:

                    @chpalmer:

                    dangerous setup there.

                    Any way you can explain why??  What I am doing wrong?  The rules you see were either:

                    created by a normal pfsense installation
                    created by pfblocker (pfblocker…)
                    created by me (allowedaliases)

                    Your last rule is allowing everything in on your WAN that isn't blocked by pfBlocker above that rule, which is dangerous.

                    You should only pass in the exact ports/IPs that you need, never pass everything in on WAN if you can help it.

                    Remember: Upvote with the 👍 button for any user/post you find to be helpful, informative, or deserving of recognition!

                    Need help fast? Netgate Global Support!

                    Do not Chat/PM for help!

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • P
                      pftdm007
                      last edited by

                      Your last rule is allowing everything in on your WAN that isn't blocked by pfBlocker above that rule, which is dangerous.

                      The last rule being peakperiod right?

                      Nachtfalke said:

                      PS: Your ALLOW rule "peak times" allows every traffic from everywhere when this rule/shedule is active. Your pfblocker rules cannot do anything until the peak rule if active. Just for your information.

                      I believe he was saying exactly the same thing.  Then I misunderstood him at that time.

                      Then I dont understand how to have the dangerous rule (peakperiod) active 24/7.  This rule has to control the bandwidth speeds on the WAN for whatever is going in/out.  Its NOT meant to allow/block traffic (its not a firewall rule in my mind, more a choking/traffic shaping rule).

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • jahonixJ
                        jahonix
                        last edited by

                        @lpallard:

                        I have a service trying to use a SSL server located in a region that is currently being blocked by pfBlocker.
                        …
                        Action : Pass
                        Disabled: Unchecked
                        Interface: WAN
                        Protocol TCP
                        Source type: Single host or alias : my alias

                        You want to connect from LAN (or any other local subnet) to a server on WAN, right?
                        Move the rule to the local interface where your traffic originates from.
                        In your setup you would allow the server in to you. I doubt you wanna do that…

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • P
                          pftdm007
                          last edited by

                          OK I am still having problems…

                          Basically the speed limiter is not working.  ON the good side, the allowedaliases rule is now working.  Initially I didnt understand the way rules really worked but now I think I am better at it.

                          On LAN, I added my custom rule to allow connection to the outside servers.  I added a destination to the rule so now this rule sits on top of the list and AFAIK allows connection from the local client to the alias.  See screen shot for details. It is working, but is it safe now??

                          On WAN, the speed limiter rule doesnt work.  I am not sure how to add a rule on the WAN side to limit the in/out speeds without allowing the entire world to get in as chpalmer said…

                          ISS1.jpg
                          ISS1.jpg_thumb
                          ISS2.jpg
                          ISS2.jpg_thumb

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