PfBlocker

marcelloc

Also, does changing "Firewall Maximum Table Entries" require a reboot?

It does not require a reboot if you do not had exceeded it.

If you are getting max entries error, clean you lists before increasing "Firewall Maximum Table Entries" value.

Mr. Jingles

Good afternoon ;D

I have pfblocker installed and running for months, but I never see any blocking going on at all. The tables do contain IP-adresses, I checked. What might be the cause of this if I may politely ask?

Thank you in advance for your help :-)

00001.jpg_thumb

kilthro

do you have any rules enabled? Its not showing anything most likely due to that.

Mr. Jingles

Thank you very much for your reply, Kilthro ;D

Yes, I think ( :o) I have. I have created screenshots as an example for one alias. Would you say I did something wrong (this is not to be ruled out, given it is me who is doing things :P)?

;D

Thank you for your help,

Bye,

marcelloc

Your list action is set to alias only.

In this situation, you need to create rules on wan and/or lan manually.

this is part of help text on list action field:

While creating rules with this list, keep aliasname in the beggining of rule description and do not end description with 'rule'.
custom rules with 'Aliasname something rule' description will be removed by package.

The rule description is usefull only for pfblocker widget, It will block ips with or without this description :)

Mr. Jingles

@marcelloc:

Your list action is set to alias only.

In this situation, you need to create rules on wan and/or lan manually.

this is part of help text on list action field:

While creating rules with this list, keep aliasname in the beggining of rule description and do not end description with 'rule'.
custom rules with 'Aliasname something rule' description will be removed by package.

Thank you very much, Marcello :P

But isn't that what I did, per the above screenshots ( did I do it wrong? :-). Or is it the problem with the rule description?

Thank you sir ;D

marcelloc

keep pfblocker_emerging_block at the beggining of wan rule description.

On screenshot you have Emerging Threads Block ip list on rule description.

fragged

@marcelloc:

@fragged:

Also, does changing "Firewall Maximum Table Entries" require a reboot?

It does not require a reboot if you do not had exceeded it.

If you are getting max entries error, clean you lists before increasing "Firewall Maximum Table Entries" value.

I'm not getting any errors, the lists are simply not downloaded and I have no idea of how to debug this further. The list in question won't download on either of my pfSense virtual machines either, with or without touching the "Firewall Maximum Table Entries" value.

I am able to load much larger lists, like iblocklist's badpeers, that contains +40k CIDR's or the level1 list containing +250k entries.

Regards,
Joona

Mr. Jingles

@marcelloc:

keep pfblocker_emerging_block at the beggining of wan rule description.

On screenshot you have Emerging Threads Block ip list on rule description.

Again thank you very much, Marcello ;D

I have changed it into what you say, but nothing happens, per the attached screenshots.

Also, I tried something else. The zedu contains the *.edu from iblocklist.com. The table contains well over 52k IP-adresses/blocks, however, I can visit all these *.edu sites (for example, harvard.edu, but I tried more sites) without any problem ???

I must be doing something stupid wrong, but I don't know what :'(

Thank you again, Marcello ;D

IceCub

Hello everyone,

I have a quick question regarding pfBlocker: does it make sense to use the DROP list in order to avoid becoming a source of SPAM? (in case I have infected computers on my network)

I don't have a mail server behind pfSense, and I already activated the TopSpammers from pfBlocker and I disabled any outgoing connections to port 25 (SMTP).

marcelloc

@IceCub:

I disabled any outgoing connections to port 25 (SMTP).

If you disabled tcp 25 outgoing, no need to add any list to block ips since smtp port is blocked for all.

Ramosel

@kilthro:

When you enable the countries, it should automatically put a rule up if you tell it to block inbound/outbound.. No need to manually create a rule. All of mine auto generated..

Marcello…. you listening?

I agree and this is what I have on my older box (x86) running 2.0.3. everything works fine

I built up a new box (amd64) and just started with a clean install of 2.1

I absolutely could not get pfBlocker running correctly so I've completely rebuilt the box and made pfBlocker the first package installed. All the lists are enabled and set to "deny both" for now. The system will not autopopulate the WAN rules. I get the LAN rules but NO WAN RULES.

Any ideas?

Rick

UPDATE… Read back a few days, created a dummy rule and stop/started pfBlocker. Rules populated and its all working.
So, is this an issue with pfBlocker or do we need to make Chris and Jim aware of the WAN rules problem?

Rick

marcelloc

@Ramosel:

So, is this an issue with pfBlocker or do we need to make Chris and Jim aware of the WAN rules problem?

If you do not have any rule on wan, you do not need deny rules from pblocker as you are already blocking all inbound traffic.

There is no wan rule problem. :)

Ramosel

@marcelloc:

@Ramosel:

So, is this an issue with pfBlocker or do we need to make Chris and Jim aware of the WAN rules problem?

If you do not have any rule on wan, you do not need deny rules from pblocker as you are already blocking all inbound traffic.

There is no wan rule problem. :)

So, if the lights are off you don't need to turn them off… but if you put a broken bulb in the socket then you can turn them off...
Ok, I don't understand... but its working so thats what matters.

Thanks,
Rick

MichianaMCR

I believe that I have a problem with pfblocker, but I'm not entirely sure. I am running inside of ESXi 5.5 and the blocked packets counters never show anything. I have the same setup that I had when I was running on bare metal, which would show the number of blocked packets per group increasing every day.

My basic setup:
ESXi 5.5
Wan using e1000 without passthrough (Supermicro AOC-SG-i2 with Intel 82575EB chipset)
Lan using e1000, also without passthrough (Same dual-port AOC-SG-i2 card as wan, different port of course)

Installed packages:
pfblocker
snort
mailreport
rrd summary

All group lists set up in pfblocker as aliases.
Firewall rules set up to block incoming from wan using these settings:
block, wan interface, ipv4, any protocol, source alias (eg pfblockerAfrica), any destination

I have ipv6 turned off in settings>advanced>networking.

I can successfully block and pass packets by adding different firewall rules to lan rules.

I have tried the wan rules both as standard wan and as floating (to enable instant blocking on match and eliminate the need to continue processing those packets.) Neither setting shows the blocked packet number increasing at all.

This may be related or not, but my Snort shows several alerts but no blocked IPs. I am using the settings as listed by jflsakfja in this post -> http://forum.pfsense.org/index.php/topic,64674.msg356959.html#msg356959 I would almost immediately get two blocked in snort, one had to do with ipv6 encapsulation and I can't recall what the other one was… some potential corporate policy violation that would always show up in the first two blocked violations.

As I was just going over my setup again in ESXi to see if I had any more relevant information to share, I may have stumbled on the problem. The wan vswitch/vm port group did not have promiscuous mode set. I have changed that and will see if that fixes it. If not, does anybody have any ideas of other things to check?

kilthro

@Ramosel:

@marcelloc:

@Ramosel:

So, is this an issue with pfBlocker or do we need to make Chris and Jim aware of the WAN rules problem?

If you do not have any rule on wan, you do not need deny rules from pblocker as you are already blocking all inbound traffic.

There is no wan rule problem. :)

So, if the lights are off you don't need to turn them off… but if you put a broken bulb in the socket then you can turn them off...
Ok, I don't understand... but its working so thats what matters.

Thanks,
Rick

So if you dont have any rules enabled in pfsense on the wan interface (as in opening ports ) it is always blocking all traffic by default so pf blocker isnt going to add any extra protection. The only benefit there is to add a lan rule to block outbound traffic… ( I do this as well with adds and sites known to be malicious etc )...

If you have rules (ports open etc) then pfblocker comes in very handy in blocking traffic on those ports/rules. For example mail server.. Keeps alot of spam out or for websites alot of unnecessary traffic. I dont have people in certain countries now trying to run scripts all day long on my web servers or ftp....

Ramosel

OH, sorry if my post seemed off course…. I do understand how the pfBlocker works and works well once it's all configured.
I still think there is some sort of anomaly if you install pfBlocker on a clean slate.
I created a dummy rule (as suggested in an earlier post) and disabled it before I ever saved it. So, is it really a rule or just a place holder? A tickler to open the door for the rules to populate? I'm not complaining but rather trying to see if there is something in the system that could be "fixed/tweaked" so that future users don't encounter this issue.

Having been a systems analyst for too many years, old ways die hard.

Rick

marcelloc

@marcelloc:

If you do not have any rule on wan, you do not need deny rules from pblocker as you are already blocking all inbound traffic.

Maybe I add this info on next package update.

nsconsulting

Hello Marcello,
is it possible to activate a list for a specific service?
I will explain it better…
I need to block connections to my email server so only to port 25 from PCs that usually are infected by Trojans.
I am currently using PFBlocker but it blocks all the traffic I can't specify a port.
If would be possible to specify a destination IP and/or port would be great.
Thanks in advance,
Marco
P.S. I guess you'll answer me to create an alias and use it in my custom rule but If you could add it straight in the
list wizard I guess would be perfect anyway:)

marcelloc

@nsconsulting:

is it possible to activate a list for a specific service?
P.S. I guess you'll answer me to create an alias and use it in my custom rule but If you could add it straight in the
list wizard I guess would be perfect anyway:)

for now, only via alias and custom rules :)