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

    Advice - Allowing client to bypass pfblocker-ng

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved pfBlockerNG
    12 Posts 8 Posters 9.2k 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.
    • W
      wesfox @RonpfS
      last edited by

      @ronpfs said in Advice - Allowing client to bypass pfblocker-ng:

      There is one post here

      https://forum.netgate.com/topic/129365/bypassing-dnsbl-for-specific-ips

      That worked :) Thank you very much.

      For newbies like myself.. a little hint .. the custom option is at the end under DNS resolver.

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • P
        papayo29
        last edited by

        Lawrence rule serves to allow host 192.168.10.3 to change its own DNS server setting and use an external one, bypassing internal DNS resolver and then the DNSBL filter. Requests to access an external DNS server from all other hosts are denied by the last firewall rule above.

        However, if host 192.168.10.3 keeps using the internal DNS, its calls to DNS are subjected to the DNSBL filter as all the the other host calls. In this case the solution to bypass this filter is the one proposed above.

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

          The allow rule to pfsense is wrong... It allows access to ANY thing on the lan net on port 53 UDP.. So any client on the lan net could access any dns they want that resides on lan net. That rule should be set to pfsense Lan IP as the destination.

          It should also be both udp and tcp

          Same for the other rules - dns can be both udp and dns... While allowing only udp will prob work for most stuff, if the client needs to switch over to use tcp for a reason, then the dns queries would fail.

          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

          manjotscM 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
          • JeGrJ
            JeGr LAYER 8 Moderator
            last edited by

            I'd change the allow rules to "LAN net" (or in case of the .10.3 an alias) and the block rule to source any? So you block out unwanted clients, that may have been connected to the network and setup with an alternative IP range?
            And wouldn't "This Firewall" be good instead of "LAN address" in case you upgrade that to a CARP setup?

            Just a thought

            Don't forget to upvote 👍 those who kindly offered their time and brainpower to help you!

            If you're interested, I'm available to discuss details of German-speaking paid support (for companies) if needed.

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • manjotscM
              manjotsc @johnpoz
              last edited by

              @johnpoz Is possible if you can show an exemple, thanks

              Annotation 2020-01-09 132240.png

              Vendor: HP
              Version: P01 Ver. 02.50
              Release Date: Wed Jul 17 2024
              Boot Method: UEFI
              24.11-RELEASE (amd64)
              FreeBSD 15.0-CURRENT
              CPU Type: Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-7500 CPU @ 3.40GHz
              Current: 3606 MHz, Max: 3400 MHz
              4 CPUs : 1 package(s) x 4 core(s)

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

                @manjotsc Here
                Screen Shot 2020-01-11 at 9.33.27 AM.png

                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.

                manjotscM 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • manjotscM
                  manjotsc @NollipfSense
                  last edited by manjotsc

                  @NollipfSense But there is no usage in states collum of DNS Expection Devices, it's 0/0B it's normal? And also one thing, My LAN Devices are able to use any DNS Server. Regardless of rules.

                  Annotation 2020-01-12 000956.png

                  Vendor: HP
                  Version: P01 Ver. 02.50
                  Release Date: Wed Jul 17 2024
                  Boot Method: UEFI
                  24.11-RELEASE (amd64)
                  FreeBSD 15.0-CURRENT
                  CPU Type: Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-7500 CPU @ 3.40GHz
                  Current: 3606 MHz, Max: 3400 MHz
                  4 CPUs : 1 package(s) x 4 core(s)

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

                    @manjotsc said in Advice - Allowing client to bypass pfblocker-ng:

                    My LAN Devices are able to use any DNS Server. Regardless of rules.

                    You understand that in no scenario does lan device talk to pfsense to talk to another device on lan... Unless your using pfsense as a bridge and the device they want to talk to is on the other side of that bridge.

                    I take it those rules are on your lan interface.. If so that rule to lan net destination is pointless.. Other than that would talk to pfsense IP in lan net... But it normally would be written with lan address if that is what you want to allow.

                    Clearly your rules are blocking hits to other dns, see the 328 B of traffic.

                    And your playstation - your letting it do more than dns with that rule.

                    And just not a clue to when you think there would be a dest of 127.0.0.1? Are you doing a port forward somewhere trying to redirect stop it with a rule? To 8443?

                    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 2
                    • manjotscM
                      manjotsc
                      last edited by

                      Thanks for recommendations, and about 127.0.01 rule, i dont know why did it.

                      Does it looks good now?

                      Annotation 2020-01-12 134025.png

                      Vendor: HP
                      Version: P01 Ver. 02.50
                      Release Date: Wed Jul 17 2024
                      Boot Method: UEFI
                      24.11-RELEASE (amd64)
                      FreeBSD 15.0-CURRENT
                      CPU Type: Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-7500 CPU @ 3.40GHz
                      Current: 3606 MHz, Max: 3400 MHz
                      4 CPUs : 1 package(s) x 4 core(s)

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • T
                        tele_01
                        last edited by

                        Hello All.

                        I would like to ask about the following. I have some IPs bundled in an ALIAS and these IPs should bypass pfBlockerNG. When I unselect these IPs by their dedicated VPN-Interface in "Select Outbound Firewall Interface", these IPs are still get filtered by pfBlocker. Is this the reason for for this because of checking the option for floating rules (Open VPN) in DNSBL firewall rules?

                        Nevertheless, I found wesfox's link for bypassing single IPs. Would this be the right way to bypass pfBlockerNG for some LAN IPs?

                        Thx for your support in advance.

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