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!!
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 24.03 | Lab VMs 2.7.2, 24.03 -
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 !
-
Where exactly are you seeing that rule that doesn't allow you dest port in it.. What version of pfblocker are you running the older or dev version?
-
@johnpoz said in New User to pfSense - some doubts:
Where exactly are you seeing that rule that doesn't allow you dest port in it.. What version of pfblocker are you running the older or dev version?
by the time I reply, you will probably have discovered that that was answered above
as for the pfBlocker version.....3 days in, so I downloaded it probably yesterday. latest, I assume ?
Let me check and see if I can find that version.....
-
@HansSolo said in New User to pfSense - some doubts:
pfSenseBlockerNG
what version does it say.. that tells me not the old one... But maybe you have not updated your packages? Can not tell if you mean non dev or dev version.
its listed right in your package manager
example
pfBlockerNG-devel 2.2.5_22there should be really screaming red flags on the pfblocker gui that its going to create an any any rule.. If that is what its doing.
Where exactly did you go in pfblocker to create said rule.
Paging @BBcan177 if pfblocker creates any any rules on the wan without huge warnings to the user.. That really should be changed..
-
@johnpoz said in New User to pfSense - some doubts:
@HansSolo said in New User to pfSense - some doubts:
pfSenseBlockerNG
what version does it say.. that tells me not the old one... But maybe you have not updated your packages? Can not tell if you mean non dev or dev version.
its listed right in your package manager
example
pfBlockerNG-devel 2.2.5_22there should be really screaming red flags on the pfblocker gui that its going to create an any any rule.. If that is what its doing.
Where exactly did you go in pfblocker to create said rule.
Paging @BBcan177 if pfblocker creates any any rules on the wan without huge warnings to the user.. That really should be changed..
pfBlockerNG net 2.1.4_16
Agreed. Unless......that rule doesn't actually give said access.
Let's hope the developer will reply regardless of the outcome.I KNOW I didn't create those rules intentionally.....but maybe they got created some how that I'm not aware of other than by pfBlockerNG ?
My gut feeling is that they were created intentionally and do not allow the access it appears.
That said...I've changed them all as suggested.....to be safe. (And I have not yet reconnected pfsense, still using WG)And as mentioned, I DID CHECK WITH MY CELL PHONE and was not able to find any compromised connections.
-
@HansSolo said in New User to pfSense - some doubts:
Agreed. Unless......that rule doesn't actually give said access.
It DOES!! since its a rule on your WAN...
-
@johnpoz said in New User to pfSense - some doubts:
@HansSolo said in New User to pfSense - some doubts:
Agreed. Unless......that rule doesn't actually give said access.
It DOES!! since its a rule on your WAN...
But in the source it lists a pfBlockerNG file, NOT a network location. What do you interpret that to mean?
OTOH...I can't speak for anyone else, but there's so much information to absorb in such a short time, brain farts do occur.
And it's possible I experienced a real winner. -
Doesn't matter if it only allows source IPs.. it is allowing to ANY ANY as dest.. So if user had a port forward to say 443 behind pfsense.. And it created a any any rule above that even if locked down to only NA... It now allows access to pfsense web gui and anything else that listens on pfsense wan, say dns, etc. etc.
Which is BAD!!! I just installed that version, enabled it and did an update.. No rules on the WAN, only the rule on my lan blocking outbound access to stuff.
-
@johnpoz said in New User to pfSense - some doubts:
Doesn't matter if it only allows source IPs.. it is allowing to ANY ANY as dest.. So if user had a port forward to say 443 behind pfsense.. And it created a any any rule above that even if locked down to only NA... It now allows access to pfsense web gui and anything else that listens on pfsense wan, say dns, etc. etc.
Which is BAD!!! I just installed that version, enabled it and did an update.. No rules on the WAN, only the rule on my lan blocking outbound access to stuff.
Ok.
Then I have no clue how that rule got there and where it came from.
I may have to chalk it up to trying to learn too much too fast over the last 3 days. -
pfBlocker just by itself can be pretty confusing IMO. There's a LOT there to take it.
I like to have full control of what rules are where which is why I recommend the Native Aliases approach. It's easier to understand the resulting ruleset when you have added everything yourself.
pfSense is guilty of that in other areas, you have to add firewall rules to allow OpenVPN traffic but IPSec traffic is passed by default by rules added automatically. You can disable that at least. If we changed that now it would break hundreds of thousands of VPNs though!
Steve
