Had my pfSense been compromised?
-
@bchan said in Had my pfSense been compromised?:
For sure it does not have the offending 103.240.140.10 in my first post.
Yes but it has your local FQDN. You sure that resolves correctly and not to some strange web IP? I'd never use local hostnames in Aliases.
-
@johnpoz
Nothing logged around that time (05:29):
-
look in your full rule set for what that ID number matches up with.
-
whois 103.240.140.10
inetnum: 103.240.140.1 - 103.240.142.255
netname: CTCL-HK
descr: ClearDDoS Technologies
country: HKIt sounds like a web security company.
-
I'm talking about your alias. Not the IP.
-
I have checked the table values for this alias and they all resolve correctly to 192.168.x.x
-
@bchan said in Had my pfSense been compromised?:
all resolve correctly to 192.168.x.x
LAPTOP-1CGD66U4 resolves to 192.168.x.x? Even on pfsense itself? Its resolvers?
-
-
@johnpoz said in Had my pfSense been compromised?:
pfctl -vvsr
pfctl -vvsr | grep 4294967295
return nothing. -
Then the rule was deleted, make sure your grep is working by using a ID in your command that you see when just looking at the output.
Are you currently seeing logs for this?
-
@johnpoz said in Had my pfSense been compromised?:
Then the rule was deleted, make sure your grep is working by using a ID in your command that you see when just looking at the output.
Are you currently seeing logs for this?
grep works for other id e.g. the teamviewer logger.
I have 2 WANs for months. This incident was the first time I saw incoming traffic to WAN2 and were logged.
As you can see from my rules, I don't have anything that will log incoming traffic for WAN2. -
Do you have UPnP enabled? Do you have it set to use WAN2, and to log connections?
That's the most likely explanation.
-
That would be my guess as well... You might be able to glean a bit more info by looking at the raw log in output.
-
When I manually trigger something like that (for example, open Deluge, go into settings, and trigger a port test), I get a similar log message with a random-ish ID.
Since the UPnP rules don't have a description, and have random IDs, and are probably short-lived, they wouldn't have a visible description in the logs even if you caught them when they were active.
-
@jimp said in Had my pfSense been compromised?:
Do you have UPnP enabled?
No I have not enabled UPnP.
-
That doesn't actually mean its not running - that is a wiget that can be edited to not show specific services.
-
@johnpoz
UPnP is not running:
-
@bchan hey dude, im interested in this as i saw exactly the same thing this morning, about 5 low ports opened by upnp and incoming UDP traffic however i now have no idea what opened them up. Do you have a PS4 on the network as its the only thing i can think that would do this?
-
@hulleyrob said in Had my pfSense been compromised?:
Do you have a PS4 on the network as its the only thing i can think that would do this?
I am running a small office and have no PS4 and have not enabled any uPnP.
-
@bchan ah ok i do have upnp enabled but have the same problem you are and cannot see after the even which computer opened up the ports just that there was a rule and its been deleted.
-
Which is exactly how upnp would work.. So it creates a rule to allow whatever was requested.. It then would delete that rule when request is removed.. So in the logs you would see just the rule ID..
Look with sockstat do you see miniupnpd running? Vs just the status, could be process that didn't shutdown or something.. Also look to see if the ports used are listening 1900, and I think maybe even 2189 or 5351 could be used.
here I enabled it for test
[2.4.4-RELEASE][admin@sg4860.local.lan]/root: sockstat | grep miniupnpd root miniupnpd 18015 4 tcp6 *:2189 *:* root miniupnpd 18015 5 dgram -> /var/run/logpriv root miniupnpd 18015 6 tcp4 *:2189 *:* root miniupnpd 18015 7 udp4 *:1900 *:* root miniupnpd 18015 8 udp6 *:1900 *:* root miniupnpd 18015 9 udp4 192.168.9.253:1920 *:* root miniupnpd 18015 10 udp6 *:44710 *:* root miniupnpd 18015 12 stream /var/run/php-fpm.socket root miniupnpd 18015 13 stream /var/run/php-fpm.socket root miniupnpd 18015 14 udp4 192.168.9.253:5351 *:* root miniupnpd 18015 16 udp6 *:5351 *:*
Then turned it off
[2.4.4-RELEASE][admin@sg4860.local.lan]/root: sockstat | grep miniupnpd [2.4.4-RELEASE][admin@sg4860.local.lan]/root:
-
@johnpoz is there any log or place i can look that would tell me what IP address requested the deleted rule to be added after the event?
My poroblem isnt that upnp is enabled as that is required for multiple PS4's to work on my network but that I cannot tell what device caused the open ports and requested the upnp rules once they are deleted. -
Wouldn't the dest IP in the log tell you who opened it?
I don't use UPnP... its horrible idea from a general security point of view.. When I did have it enabled for my sons playstation, the play station was on isolated vlan, and UPNP was restricted to only allow requests from his ps ip.. And also restricted in what ports could be allowed also - sure and the F do not need 53 inbound, or 88.. Its not doing freaking kerb inbound, etc..
The lack of documentation in these game consoles and what is actually required is just horrific... How freaking hard is it to say game X needs ABC inbound, and EFG outbound..
Some of them lists ports.. but then they don't call out if inbound or outbound or both, etc.. For example why would they need 80 inbound... This isn't even viable on many home connections because their isp AUP prevents running services and block such a port anyway, etc..
So sorry off the top of my head I don't know that much about how its implemented in pfsense - other than not something I would suggest any one run ;)
-
@johnpoz haha fair enough, i did set up manual rules but gave up after a while especially as there are 2 playstations on the network its just easier.
The IP it shows is just the external IP I cant see which internal IP requested the rule, ive had other things on the network do this as well and its always a pain to see where it originated after the event. I was just hoping someone knew an easier way to find out. Weird how I also have the same IP addresses and ports connecting to my network as OP. -
Not sure call it weird, he had or still has UPnP running - this for explains what he saw in the logs.
-
@johnpoz sorry i meant weird how we both had connections from the same IP address and the same ports. But i aggree it does look like upnp is running on his firewall.
-
Suppose this could be any number of IoT's phoning home? TV, etc.?
-
@provels yeah I thought that too but I tried them one by one tonight and didn't see anything however looking closer at the rules that were opened up it all seems to be Microsoft authentication stuff and I don't run Windows.
Also I have now added a rule to the ACLs for upnp to stop low ports being opened. -
@hulleyrob Maybe it's "Steven's Phone"...
https://alltvspots.com/tag/xfinity-stevens-phone/ -
@provels haha yeah is windows phone even a thing anymore? Could be anything i suppose but Iโm going to keep a more careful eye on it for a while.
-
@hulleyrob Glad you asked! I have 2 - 1 Nokia, 1 MS; one for use, one for backup. MS sold 2 and I bought them both! Going on 5 years, same battery, Windows 10, updates monthly. Makes calls and texts, takes pictures, navigation, in-a-pinch Internet, a few apps (not app-happy here). Best $30 (x2) I ever spent. Consumer Cellular, $25/month. I'll stop now.
-
514 is syslog, 995 is pop3 ssl, 546 and 547 is dhcpv6... 990 ftps
WTF why would any devices open those? 445 is smb over tcp.. 389 LDAP
Those are not unique to windows...But I would be concerned with stuff opening those up... Which is why you never run freaking UPnP... Its was a horrible idea from day one..
Why not just sniff on your interface for the UPnP ports and see what is hitting them.
-
Hi, I have exactly the same problem - weird incoming connections from the same ip (103.240.140.10). UPnP is disabled. No open WAN ports, no floating rules. Pfsense 2.4.4-RELEASE-p3 (amd64). I googled this IP and realize it has been blacklisted at some places:
http://sanyalnet-cloud-vps.freeddns.org/mirai-ips.txt
https://whatismyipaddress.eu/downloads/ip-blacklist.txt
I have only Windows 7 PC's in my LAN. They all were shut down when this traffic appear. Sorry for my bad English.
-
https://www.abuseipdb.com/check/103.240.140.10
But not why the traffic was passed. -
Your not even showing your rule Ids or description. For all we know you have an any any rule on your wan?
-
When I place the mouse over the green check on left on the rule, it shows "pass/0". When I click it opens a popup: "The rule that triggered this action is:" Nothing else.
-
Rule description is @4294967295.
-
Does anyone have an idea where the rule id comes from as it looks like we all have the same rule ID number creating these rules maybe this will give us an idea of where they are coming from?
Ideally there would be some logging or history but as everyone has said upnp is a bad idea for most people so i guess thats why it doesnt exist.
Also they are also 8 seconds apart in batches but this could be the time that the service runs each time?
-
So I just turned UPnP on - to test.. And then set my plex to use UPnP vs the static forward I have setup.
So I disabled my normal port forward.. Then enable UPnP
And I get this.
After doing a can you see me for the port listed in the UPnP status 21735
Is not coming up with that ID number.. A google for that ID and pfsense came up with this thread
https://forum.netgate.com/topic/128685/firewall-log-showing-strange-pass-entryCan we see the raw firewall logs for these entries. Like in that thread.
example - here is the raw entry for one of those passed via upnp
Oct 15 06:10:27 filterlog: 224,0,miniupnpd,0,igb1,match,pass,in,4,0x0,,42,13284,0,DF,6,tcp,60,52.202.215.126,192.168.9.10,58368,32400,0,S,2623792563,,26883,,mss;sackOK;TS;nop;wscale
You can see from the log that miniupnpd there.. So lets see the raw for these entries.
From that other thread
Mar 25 14:42:05 pfSense filterlog: 4294967295,,,0,re0,short,pass,in,4,0x0,,239,10359,0,DF,6,tcp,36,105.212.87.78,[MYIPADDRESS],2123,23,-4,S,errormsg='[bad hdr length 20 - too long, > 16]',Not exactly sure what "short" means as the reason...
-
@johnpoz yeah sure i did look at those last night but couldnt see anything that looked much differant from in the screenshot but maybe you will see something i cannot. Will post as soon as i get home from work. Thanks to everyone for input and testing this.