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

    PfSense not blocking attacker (FIXED)

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved General pfSense Questions
    35 Posts 10 Posters 6.4k 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.
    • K
      kejianshi
      last edited by

      Whatever you do, don't wipe it and reinstall it…

      If you did that, it might fix it without ever satisfying the curiosity of the masses.

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • S
        staroflaw
        last edited by

        staroflaw Will you post when you find a solution to your problem? Often after solving the problem, nothing is heard thereafter ;-)

        I know what you mean, I will deferential post if I fix it.

        Whatever you do, don't wipe it and reinstall it…
        If you did that, it might fix it without ever satisfying the curiosity of the masses.

        I also want to understand why its not working correctly, just in case I see the happen again.

        This attack has now been going for 5 days, they have made over 1,728000 requests.
        I have reported it to my ISP and Ecatel LTD the owner of that IP.

        My ISP says they cannot do anything about it unless they have a large amount of complaints relating to that IP. I totally understand that.
        Ecatel LTD say….... "Nothing" I have had no response from them at all. I have contacted them two times now with LOG's and nothing.

        Star.

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • chpalmerC
          chpalmer
          last edited by

          Star:

          On your WAN rule to block this guy-

          Make sure that Logging is checked…

          On the pass/block/recject option at the top of the rule- set to reject (just to test) and see what the firewall logs show...

          Set "Destination" to your server LAN IP address.

          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
          • johnpozJ
            johnpoz LAYER 8 Global Moderator
            last edited by

            so how exactly is he getting in and hitting your webserver.  I don't see any rules that would be there from a port forward - your wan rules don't show any allows other than icmp from one IP.

            So only inbound traffic would be from a state that client on lan created the connection.

            look at your state table and filter for his IP and what do you see for states?

            An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools
            If you get confused: Listen to the Music Play
            Please don't Chat/PM me for help, unless mod related
            SG-4860 24.11 | Lab VMs 2.8, 24.11

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • S
              staroflaw
              last edited by

              I don't see any rules that would be there from a port forward

              johnpoz you are absolutely correct. I assumed the wan rule was created automatically for you but as it is clearly not there, obviously not. The answer was in front of me all along. My HTTP Filter rule association was set to PASS. That’s why it just ignored my Block WAN rule.
              I don’t know how I missed this!

              I can now confirm it is blocking.
              A BIG thank you to all who participated in the discussion and for all help offered.

              Star.

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • S
                staroflaw
                last edited by

                Here is how I setup my HTTP NAT correctly.

                Filter rule association > Create new associated filter rule.

                Apply changes.

                Then under Rules add your block rule.

                Make sure the block rule is above everything else.

                You can also see the new rule added NAT HTTP_Server

                Star.

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • johnpozJ
                  johnpoz LAYER 8 Global Moderator
                  last edited by

                  jimp?  I don't see anywhere where jimp pointed out anything ;)

                  An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools
                  If you get confused: Listen to the Music Play
                  Please don't Chat/PM me for help, unless mod related
                  SG-4860 24.11 | Lab VMs 2.8, 24.11

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • S
                    staroflaw
                    last edited by

                    lol. typo.  ;D

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • K
                      kejianshi
                      last edited by

                      I don't remember any mention of a HTTP pass rule…  (-:
                      Which gets me back to my original theory of there must be a pass rule somewhere.

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • johnpozJ
                        johnpoz LAYER 8 Global Moderator
                        last edited by

                        he had has port forward set to pass vs creating a rule… I never understand why people change it from the default of create new rule if you they don't fully understand what they are doing ;)

                        An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools
                        If you get confused: Listen to the Music Play
                        Please don't Chat/PM me for help, unless mod related
                        SG-4860 24.11 | Lab VMs 2.8, 24.11

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • K
                          kejianshi
                          last edited by

                          Simple mistake, I'm sure.

                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • S
                            staroflaw
                            last edited by

                            Simple mistake, I'm sure.

                            Yes it was.  :)

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