DDoS pfSense dies on XSYN and OVH scripts.
-
Its pfSense related and take it down instantly.
So it does NOT happen on FreeBSD?
I tried it on a clean freeBSD 10.1
- it was much better than pfsense, not saying that is was 100% up, it had some packetloss as well, but no more then pfsense which instantly or mostly get 90-100% packetloss.
It was without any tuning as well on freebsd 10.1
- it was much better than pfsense, not saying that is was 100% up, it had some packetloss as well, but no more then pfsense which instantly or mostly get 90-100% packetloss.
-
"but no more then pfsense which instantly or mostly get 90-100% packetloss"
So was it less or more. Same? how much less or more?
-
"but no more then pfsense which instantly or mostly get 90-100% packetloss"
So was it less or more. Same? how much less or more?
It really depend on the attack method. SYN-ACK or SYN-FIN, packet size etc.
But after over 100 test i would still say pfsense could have done it better. It is not handling SYN request correctly. I don't have the skills to fix it or go deeper into it.
Result:
FreeBSD 10.1 = every 7-8th ping = packetloss (avg packetloss 10-20%)
PFsense = every 1-2nd ping packetloss (avg packetloss 80-90%)So there is a notable difference clearly. PFsense was running stateful. Stateless helped a little bit.
-
Anybody with serious freeBSD skills wanting to help us test this??
Money could be involved :D
-
I wonder if getting someone from the FreeBSD forums may be useful at this point.
-
We have had ZERO response from the pfSense guys. This is quite disturbing since we can take down any site protected by pfSense as it is.
Right now its better to run without pf at all and rely on windows Firewall on VM's and let pf handle the routing. Only way to survive the attacks as it is.
Thinking og getting my old ISA2006 online again to test and see how it behaves.
-
A little more…
http://youtu.be/boa7bbeKRG0
Now we can limit the states that is created but basic routing is not working....still.
-
youtu huh?
-
Video is private :
-
Better??
-
Have you tried PFSense 2.2? I know FreeBSD 10.1 was tested and PFSense 2.1.5 was tested, but those are two quite different versions of FreeBSD.
I could let you try it against my box, but only a few quick tests, wife likes to watch Netflix :-)
-
We have had ZERO response from the pfSense guys. This is quite disturbing since we can take down any site protected by pfSense as it is.
Right now its better to run without pf at all and rely on windows Firewall on VM's and let pf handle the routing. Only way to survive the attacks as it is.
Thinking og getting my old ISA2006 online again to test and see how it behaves.
You didn't try, now did you? Did you send a message to coreteam? To Chris, or me, or…?
No, you just randomly attacked the store and forum.
-
WTF???!!!
Lowprofile is the one having this dialog with Chris and we are working hard on trying to solve this!?
Spent most of friday evening in a datacenter discussing options with Lowprofile in here…
So you are fucking acusing me of taking the store and forum offline...
You take those words right back or you will hear from a lawyer ....THATS NOT OK TO INSINUATE THAT AT ALL!!
-
WTF???!!!
Lowprofile is the one having this dialog with Chris and we are working hard on trying to solve this!?
Spent most of friday evening in a datacenter discussing options with Lowprofile in here…
So you are fucking acusing me of taking the store and forum offline...
You take those words right back or you will hear from a lawyer ....THATS NOT OK TO INSINUATE THAT AT ALL!!
You said you did right here:
https://forum.pfsense.org/index.php?topic=88694.msg491103#msg491103"It didnt help. It takes this forum and store.netgate.com down as well easily."
It didnt help. It takes this forum and store.netgate.com down as well easily.
Throughput needs only to be about 20mbit before it dies and cant handle the traffic.
Its no issue if you use windows firewall as the frontend and the webserver itself can easily handle the traffic both regarding backlog and overall traffic and packets.
Its pfSense related and take it down instantly.
-
Its pfSense related and take it down instantly.
So it does NOT happen on FreeBSD?
Now that I've got the "script" (it's C code) that Supermule posted compiling, we'll look at it.
Reporting this to Chris in private is so seriously Not how this is done.
There was no email to security@
There was no email to coreteam@ -
popcorn
-
Dude….pls. READ what it says....
IT takes the forum and the store offline. IT didnt say I did it.... but suggests that YOU are vulnerable as well ....
So I inform you and then its my fault and me beeing behind it??
I am only reporting whats found among people I talk to IRL frequently. They test like mad people at the moment to come up with whats wrong with the software and I only report it when and IF we find something....
-
I havent reported anything to Chris. Lowprofile is the one handling that and the one in touch with Chris.
He has reported our findings or no findings… He is the one and NOT me....
So then you wouldnt find any email from me to the adresses you wrote because I didnt send one!
Its THAT obvious...
@gonzopancho:
Its pfSense related and take it down instantly.
So it does NOT happen on FreeBSD?
Now that I've got the "script" (it's C code) that Supermule posted compiling, we'll look at it.
Reporting this to Chris in private is so seriously Not how this is done.
There was no email to security@
There was no email to coreteam@ -
This is exactly why I never joke about farting in a crowded elevator to my GF.
I'll mention it in jest. Someone will actually do it and suddenly…. I'm the bad guy... :-\ -
Dude….pls. READ what it says....
IT takes the forum and the store offline. IT didnt say I did it.... but suggests that YOU are vulnerable as well ....
So I inform you and then its my fault and me beeing behind it??
I am only reporting whats found among people I talk to IRL frequently. They test like mad people at the moment to come up with whats wrong with the software and I only report it when and IF we find something....
Reporting issues with the software is fine. Reporting issues with the software in such a way that someone can reproduce them is even better (so your 'script' is actually useful).
Attacking other people's infrastructure (which you reported having done) is not fine.
And, frankly, you DID NOT INFORM ME.
Having a private conversation with Chris (and at this point I don't care if it was you, or Lowprofile , or someone else) and having a discussion in the forum where you report that "no response from the pfsense guys"
We have had ZERO response from the pfSense guys. This is quite disturbing since we can take down any site protected by pfSense as it is.
Right now its better to run without pf at all and rely on windows Firewall on VM's and let pf handle the routing. Only way to survive the attacks as it is.
Thinking og getting my old ISA2006 online again to test and see how it behaves.
is not responsible, or friendly, or even … professional.