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

    Anti-lockout rule too promiscuous?

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Firewalling
    8 Posts 4 Posters 1.4k 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.
    • P
      Paul47
      last edited by

      I noticed that I could get into the webgui from the WLAN via the anti-lockout rule on the LAN. This because the source in this rule is "*".

      I am aware of the standard way to restrict access to the webgui mentioned in the pfsense book. I'd rather not go to that extent; what I really want is to leave the anti-lockout rule in there but restrict the source to "LAN net" so that I can take any old computer and hook it up physically to the LAN to get the webgui. So this would be an intermediate level of security between the current default and the method in the book.

      Of course I tried to edit the anti-lockout rule directly, but that didn't work too well.  :P

      I suppose that making such a change would make it impossible to SSH in to the webgui, but my guess is that people who are going to use SSH are probably going to disable the anti-lockout rule anyway. It seems to me the people keeping this rule in the set would appreciate it being a bit tighter than it is now, or at least the ability to make it tighter by directly editing it (in my opinion the latter is the less desirable course because the default is really for newbies, eh?).

      Am I missing something here? Is there a way to tighten up this rule a bit, that I have missed? I suppose, just make a parallel rule and disable the default, but still the default seems too promiscuous.

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • D
        doktornotor Banned
        last edited by

        That's not the rule that is applied. You need a rule on your WLAN, not LAN.

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

          huh??  So is your wlan on same interface as your lan?

          There is no antilock out rule on your wlan interface.  So if you don't want users from wlan getting to your web gui, put in a rule on that interface to not allow access.

          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 2.7.2, 24.11

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

            I've never encountered  "too promiscuous" before…

            Back to firewalls...  I agree johnpoz and doktornotor.

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • P
              Paul47
              last edited by

              Sorry about not providing more context. I'm not a whiz at this stuff.

              My WLAN and LAN are different interfaces.

              I did of course start out with a rule on WLAN preventing access from "WLAN net" to "WLAN address", but found I could still get into the webgui. My conjecture was that it was happening through the LAN anti-lockout rule. Perhaps I jumped to the wrong conclusion? Anyway I can get into the webgui from my WLAN, which is something I don't want.

              Oh, I recall I checked my conjecture by adding a rule on WLAN preventing access from "WLAN net" to "LAN address", which stopped the access.

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • P
                Paul47
                last edited by

                Just in case this is not clear, I got my laptop on the WLAN, and in the browser entered not the pfsense "WLAN address" (which I had already blocked anyway), but the pfsense "LAN address". That got me into the webgui.

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • D
                  doktornotor Banned
                  last edited by

                  This must be on the interface where the traffic first hits the firewall, i.e. WLAN in your case.

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • P
                    Paul47
                    last edited by

                    Ah, "This firewall". I was scratching my head for a minute until I found out that was a 2.2 addition - I just got on 2.2 yesterday. Anyway I tried it, and it does the trick, better than calling it out for each interface.

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