New User to pfSense - some doubts
-
@HansSolo said in New User to pfSense - some doubts:
So far in my experiments with pfsense, too many are "slipping" through and being so new to pfSense, I'm not sure why.
Connections do not "slip" through a firewall, they are either allowed or not allowed.. If traffic was allowed, then your rules allowed it.. While the countries listing are pretty good - if you think the pfblocker list of countries is 100% accurate then your kidding yourself. There is no list that is going to be 100%... IP ranges get transferred all the time for starters. A netblock might be registered to company X in country Y, but being used in country Z etc..
We are in the process of transferring some IPs to another company in the EU, ie moving from arin to ripe.. How long do you think it will take for these "lists" to get updated, if they ever do? And when the listings do get updated - this new company we transferred to might be using the IPs in APAC, and not the EU, etc.
Are you logging all traffic that is allowed via your rules? Had your logged rolled over in pfsense, it only shows in the gui last X number of entries, you can adjust.. But again not going to be complete logs and depending on how much your logging can roll over.. You would have to look in the actual logs vs the gui.. Better yet your logs should be sent to your logging server.
But if pfsense allowed it, and you have set it to log - then it would log.
-
@johnpoz said in New User to pfSense - some doubts:
@HansSolo said in New User to pfSense - some doubts:
So far in my experiments with pfsense, too many are "slipping" through and being so new to pfSense, I'm not sure why.
Connections do not "slip" through a firewall, they are either allowed or not allowed.. If traffic was allowed, then your rules allowed it.. While the countries listing are pretty good - if you think the pfblocker list of countries is 100% accurate then your kidding yourself. There is no list that is going to be 100%... IP ranges get transferred all the time for starters. A netblock might be registered to company X in country Y, but being used in country Z etc..
We are in the process of transferring some IPs to another company in the EU, ie moving from arin to ripe.. How long do you think it will take for these "lists" to get updated, if they ever do? And when the listings do get updated - this new company we transferred to might be using the IPs in APAC, and not the EU, etc.
Are you logging all traffic that is allowed via your rules? Had your logged rolled over in pfsense, it only shows in the gui last X number of entries, you can adjust.. But again not going to be complete logs and depending on how much your logging can roll over.. You would have to look in the actual logs vs the gui.. Better yet your logs should be sent to your logging server.
But if pfsense allowed it, and you have set it to log - then it would log.
Thanks. Agreed. As mentioned several times above, I realize it's more likely a short-coming with the lists rather than the firewall.
I think your point about sending the logs to a logging server is a good one. I need to see all the logs sometimes, not just the last 50 entries.
Not wanting to invest in any more WG (or other) firewall appliances and so REALLY hoping I can adapt to pfSense. (My only concern is that they will eventually end the "freebie" program once they get where they want to be market-wise., and the price will be up there. (Happens all the time)
Thanks again
-
@HansSolo said in New User to pfSense - some doubts:
(My only concern is that they will eventually end the "freebie" program once they get where they want to be market-wise
Dude if your here to troll this FUD... This has be asked an answered many many times all over the freaking internet... Free version of pfsense isn't going anywhere..
-
If those WAN rules are allow traffic only to that one internal server you really should change them to have that destination IP and ports. Right now you are allowing access from any IP in the list to the pfSense GUI. And any other services running on pfSense....
I prefer to set pfBlocker to create Native aliases only and add the rules using them myself.
Also the x700/x1000 was 32bit hardware so won't run current pfSense in case you were considering it.
Steve
-
@stephenw10 said in New User to pfSense - some doubts:
If those WAN rules are allow traffic only to that one internal server you really should change them to have that destination IP and ports. Right now you are allowing access from any IP in the list to the pfSense GUI. And any other services running on pfSense....
I prefer to set pfBlocker to create Native aliases only and add the rules using them myself.
Also the x700/x1000 was 32bit hardware so won't run current pfSense in case you were considering it.
Steve
Steve,
I didn't create those rules.
They were AutoGenerated BY pfSenseBlockerNGThis rule does not give you the option to change the ports.
I do sincerely hope they are not creating rules that compromise security.
Like I said above, isn't there some kind of proxying going on here?If you look at the rules, they do not point to an IP address, alias or any location for that matter.
They simply point to the blocking file configuration itself.Can you let me know if you STILL believe these rules are in error?
Thanks -
@HansSolo said in New User to pfSense - some doubts:
Can you let me know if you STILL believe these rules are in error?
An any any rule on your wan is NEVER going to be a good thing to be honest.. be it you lock down the source in some way or not..
-
For anyone who comes to this thread later......
At least in pfsense 2.4.4, here is how you can look at your pfSenseBlockerNG files and see ALL the IP addresses in any given file....
In the WebConfiguration console, go to --> DIAGNOSTICS --> EDIT FILES
There you get a graphical Directory listing of the entire PfSense system (it's a Linux system)
The pfb_NAmerica file for example is located here.....(click on it and it will open in a text editor)
/var/db/pfblockerng/original/pfB_NAmerica_v4.orig
-
@johnpoz said in New User to pfSense - some doubts:
@HansSolo said in New User to pfSense - some doubts:
Can you let me know if you STILL believe these rules are in error?
An any any rule on your wan is NEVER going to be a good thing to be honest.. be it you lock down the source in some way or not..
I agree....
So are you also agreeing that pfSenseBlockerNG has incorrectly configured their settings?
Because once again, what you see in the diagram above is created during the install of pfsenseblockNG and I did not configure those rules.
-
Yes, you should change those rules.
As I said, if I were doing it I would set pfBlocker to create aliases only, not add rules. Then add the rules I need separately using those aliases.
pfBlocker only does what you configure it to do and looks like you configured it so add inbound pass rules. That is almost certainly not what you wanted. At least not without a destination/port.
Steve
-
@HansSolo said in New User to pfSense - some doubts:
So are you also agreeing that pfSenseBlockerNG has incorrectly configured their settings?
NO!!! I just ran through the wizard and it didn't create single rule on my WAN!!
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 -
There seems to be some confusion floating here, so I'm posting a screen shot of the rule that everal keep saying I need to change.
Here is the configuration for the rule in question for pfSenseBlockerNG.
As you can see, it is not like a regular rule configuration screen and does not allow for the changes being suggested.....
There is nowhere to change PORTS....and the destination could be changed to the IP of the server but I get an error when I make that change.
-
There is no ports option as you have Protocol set to Any, that needs to be set to TCP/UDP or one of them to see ports. For example ESP, ICMP and AH protocols do not have ports.
-
@johnpoz said in New User to pfSense - some doubts:
@HansSolo said in New User to pfSense - some doubts:
So are you also agreeing that pfSenseBlockerNG has incorrectly configured their settings?
NO!!! I just ran through the wizard and it didn't create single rule on my WAN!!
Really ????
I didn't create those rules. Honest.
I wonder if it's because our configurations are different? Are you running a server behind your pfSense?
What version pfsense are you running? -
@conor said in New User to pfSense - some doubts:
There is no ports option as you have Protocol set to Any, that needs to be set to TCP/UDP or one of them to see ports. For example ESP, ICMP and AH protocols do not have ports.
Ah!
ok.It's a mystery then why those rules were created like that?
I DID NOT create those rules and thought they were just part of the pfSenseBlockerNG setup.
Good thing my server is still behind my WG Firebox at the moment and not the pfSense firewall.
-
@HansSolo said in New User to pfSense - some doubts:
I wonder if it's because our configurations are different? Are you running a server behind your pfSense?
What version pfsense are you running?Yes I have ports forwarded, I run ntp server to the world via ntp pool.. I have friends and family access to my plex server.
As to what version of pfsense I run - its in my signature.. And yes I would be running current, as any sane person should be.
That you think an any any rule is ok on your wan - even IF some tool created it.. Is just beyond nuts...
-
They are created by pfBlocker but only because of how it's configured.
pfBlocker can create firewall rules but does not have to. It depends what you have set the list action to.
Typically it is set to add block rules to prevent LAN side clients reaching out to, for example, known malware sites.
However I recommend setting the list action to Native Alias only and then using those aliases in rules you add yourself.
Also worth noting the pfBlocker setup wizard is only in the dev version I believe.
Steve
-
While the wizard might be only in dev... The older version doesn't create rules like that without being told to do it..
You don't install any version of pfblocker and next thing without doing anything have any any rules on your wan... That would be insane!!
-
@johnpoz said in New User to pfSense - some doubts:
While the wizard might be only in dev... The older version doesn't create rules like that without being told to do it..
You don't install any version of pfblocker and next thing without doing anything have any any rules on your wan... That would be insane!!
ok ok...I'm probably not insane (or nuts). and no, I do not think ANY rule is "ok". Not sure where you assumed that. Just not familiar with pfsense and pfSenseBlockerNG. Day 3 with pfSense so I can't possibly know everything about how it and the blocker works under the hood. I thought it was some kind of fancy proxying of the lists and DNS manipulation.
I did check with my cell phone and no access was granted to any unauthorized part of the network so no harm done.
-
@HansSolo said in New User to pfSense - some doubts:
I do not think ANY rule is "ok". Not sure where you assumed that
Because you had them on your wan ;) And then asked if they were ok...
-
@johnpoz said in New User to pfSense - some doubts:
@HansSolo said in New User to pfSense - some doubts:
I do not think ANY rule is "ok". Not sure where you assumed that
Because you had them on your wan ;) And then asked if they were ok...
Well think about it.....
If I was "insane" or "nuts", I probably wouldn't have even asked.
Let's not beat up the noobs just because they are not totally familiar with pfsense yet and don't know right off the bat if automated configurations that they didn't put there are legit or not (even if they look odd)
Thanks for all the great advice everyone !
