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

    pfBlockerNG Alias Firewall Rule Question

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved pfBlockerNG
    16 Posts 4 Posters 1.7k 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.
    • T
      tman222
      last edited by

      Hi all - just wanted to bump this to see if anyone had any idea whether I described is normal behavior?

      If I have an IPv4 UDP Pass firewall rule with a pfBlockerNG created alias in the source and VPN server and port in the destination fields, will pfBlockerNG pick up all UDP packets on that firewall rule even if the packets do not match the IP and port of VPN server (i.e. just random IPv4 UDP traffic)?

      Thanks again for your help, I really appreciate it.

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

        Post a screenshot of your rules..

        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 2.8, 24.11

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • NogBadTheBadN
          NogBadTheBad
          last edited by NogBadTheBad

          From previous posts looks like you run OpenVPN.

          If you use IPsec you need UDP 4500 & 500.

          Screenshot 2019-10-16 at 08.35.10.png

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • T
            tman222
            last edited by

            Hi @johnpoz and @NogBadTheBad - thanks for getting back to me. Here is a screenshot of my WAN rules - as you can there are only just a couple rules related to OpenVPN, with the pass rule having the pfBlockerNG created alias in the source field:

            74e0d30f-9cdd-4da8-ac39-1e00041b1486-image.png

            Nevertheless, I still see the packet count going up in the Dashboard widget even though no traffic UDP traffic is going destined for the OpenVPN server / port.

            3dddb920-c752-45e5-ae4c-bca514854149-image.png

            By cross-referending again the firewall logs it seems like all UDP traffic is being counted by the widget somehow. That other UDP traffic is being blocked by the firewall though according to the logs.

            Do you guys have any ideas? Thanks again for your help.

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • NogBadTheBadN
              NogBadTheBad
              last edited by NogBadTheBad

              Shouldn't both point to the WAN interface ?

              1571224803333-74e0d30f-9cdd-4da8-ac39-1e00041b1486-image.png

              Post the screenshots from your pfBlocker alias, here's what my SSHPERMIT looks like:-

              Screenshot 2019-10-16 at 13.11.36.png

              You've not told pfBlocker to create an alias match have you ?

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • T
                tman222
                last edited by

                HI @NogBadTheBad - thanks for getting back to me. I made the change to the WAN rule.

                Also, I'm using the original pfBlockerNG, not pfBlockerNG-devel. Here are the settings for this GeoIP alias:

                66016227-288b-4200-b324-140273c7b30c-image.png

                I did to choose "Alias Native" - is that not correct? Thanks again.

                NogBadTheBadN 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • NogBadTheBadN
                  NogBadTheBad
                  last edited by

                  I'd upgrade to pfBlockerNG-devel.

                  T 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • T
                    tman222 @NogBadTheBad
                    last edited by

                    @NogBadTheBad said in pfBlockerNG Alias Firewall Rule Question:

                    I'd upgrade to pfBlockerNG-devel.

                    Thanks @NogBadTheBad - is the upgrade seamless? That is, will my settings stick between the two or do I have to reconfigure everything? Also, I assume the upgrade process would be to uninstall the hold pfBlockerNG first and then install pfBlockerNG-devel? Thanks again.

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • NogBadTheBadN
                      NogBadTheBad
                      last edited by

                      Not sure TBH I went straight to pfBlockerNG-devel, maybe @BBcan177 could advise.

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • NogBadTheBadN
                        NogBadTheBad @tman222
                        last edited by NogBadTheBad

                        This post is deleted!
                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • T
                          tman222
                          last edited by

                          Thanks @NogBadTheBad - I really appreciate the help. Hopefully @BBcan177 could advise me as well on what the best path forward here would be. Thanks again!

                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • T
                            tman222
                            last edited by tman222

                            Well, I went ahead and wiped out my pfBlockerNG install tonight and reinstalled with pfBlockerNG-devel including my block lists. Set up a Permit Alias for VPN similar to what @NogBadTheBad did for SSH in the screenshot above. Applied this alias as the source on the inbound VPN firewall rule on WAN. However, I still see all UDP traffic (packets) being picked up and counted by the widget in the dashboard. Cross-checking against the firewall logs the UDP traffic is being blocked by the default deny rule. I just don't quite understand why it is being counted as a PASS packet. Does anyone have any ideas? Does the traffic hit pfBlockerNG first before the default deny rule? Thanks again.

                            Edit: I also found this all thread on Alias which indicates that a Permit Alias would be the right choice in this case:

                            https://forum.netgate.com/topic/121185/pfblockerng-alias

                            NollipfSenseN 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • NollipfSenseN
                              NollipfSense @tman222
                              last edited by

                              @tman222 said in pfBlockerNG Alias Firewall Rule Question:

                              I just don't quite understand why it is being counted as a PASS packet.

                              Remember, the NIC sees the packet before the firewall does!

                              pfSense+ 23.09 Lenovo Thinkcentre M93P SFF Quadcore i7 dual Raid-ZFS 128GB-SSD 32GB-RAM PCI-Intel i350-t4 NIC, -Intel QAT 8950.
                              pfSense+ 23.09 VM-Proxmox, Dell Precision Xeon-W2155 Nvme 500GB-ZFS 128GB-RAM PCIe-Intel i350-t4, Intel QAT-8950, P-cloud.

                              T 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                              • T
                                tman222 @NollipfSense
                                last edited by

                                @NollipfSense said in pfBlockerNG Alias Firewall Rule Question:

                                @tman222 said in pfBlockerNG Alias Firewall Rule Question:

                                I just don't quite understand why it is being counted as a PASS packet.

                                Remember, the NIC sees the packet before the firewall does!

                                Thanks @NollipfSense, I appreciate your response.

                                So that does that mean that pfBlockerNG sees the packets before they hit the firewall's default deny rule and that's why they are being counted? Unfortunately I don't know enough about how the package works to be certain on this.

                                Thanks again.

                                NollipfSenseN 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                • NollipfSenseN
                                  NollipfSense @tman222
                                  last edited by NollipfSense

                                  @tman222 Well, I think it would be pfSense that provided pfBlockerNG widget the packet info.

                                  pfSense+ 23.09 Lenovo Thinkcentre M93P SFF Quadcore i7 dual Raid-ZFS 128GB-SSD 32GB-RAM PCI-Intel i350-t4 NIC, -Intel QAT 8950.
                                  pfSense+ 23.09 VM-Proxmox, Dell Precision Xeon-W2155 Nvme 500GB-ZFS 128GB-RAM PCIe-Intel i350-t4, Intel QAT-8950, P-cloud.

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