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

    Guest VLAN isolated from Management LAN: rules to keep Internet access?

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Firewalling
    16 Posts 5 Posters 2.9k 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.
    • G
      GoldFish
      last edited by

      @Chti:

      However when using Diagnostic/Ping, I can still ping a device on another VLAN, which I assume is because it travels up to the PfSense box then down to that other VLAN again?
      Wouldn't that mean the other VLANs are still accessible in some way as well?

      Diagnostic/Ping is from the firewall itself so nothing is travelling up to the pfSense box. It is from pfSense directly. The source will be pfSense when you use Diagnostic/Ping. You are still able to ping because pfSense has access to all. This does not mean a vLAN has access to other vLAN

      Usually i start with Any Any rule and once i confirm that its working, I would put the block rules on top of Any Any which is what you have done. The best way to test the blocks is to actually use ping or tracert or try to communicate from one vLAN to another and not from pfSense.

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

        So you don't want this vlan 99 to access any of your other networks?  Which I assume are all rfc1918 space..  Do want this vlan to be able to access anything on pfsense at all?

        You rules could be done in 2 rules - Derelict doesn't like to do it this way… ;)  But it is another way to skin the cat...

        So leave your redirect rule there.. But vs doing an any any rule, you can get rid of all of those block rules and change your any any rule to a ! (not) rfc1918 rule..

        Create an alias, put in 10/8, 192.168/16, 172.16/12 this makes up the rfrc1918 space which all your other vlans are on..  Then on your any any rule just make it ! rfc1918 alias.. So if dest is anything rfc1918 from this vlan it would not be allowed and blocked by the default rule.  If ie a public IP address then it would be allowed..

        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

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • DerelictD
          Derelict LAYER 8 Netgate
          last edited by

          Reject to dest rfc1918 then pass any. :)

          Chattanooga, Tennessee, USA
          A comprehensive network diagram is worth 10,000 words and 15 conference calls.
          DO NOT set a source address/port in a port forward or firewall rule unless you KNOW you need it!
          Do Not Chat For Help! NO_WAN_EGRESS(TM)

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

            Yup that works too - see lots of ways to skin the cat ;)

            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

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • DerelictD
              Derelict LAYER 8 Netgate
              last edited by

              Only one right way though. :)

              Chattanooga, Tennessee, USA
              A comprehensive network diagram is worth 10,000 words and 15 conference calls.
              DO NOT set a source address/port in a port forward or firewall rule unless you KNOW you need it!
              Do Not Chat For Help! NO_WAN_EGRESS(TM)

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

                heheheeh - ROFL…. The Derelict way ;) heheheeh

                What if combine your reject to rfc above my ! rfc allow rule?  Would that be ok? ;)

                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

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • V
                  Velcro
                  last edited by

                  Not trying to stir the pot but thanks Johnpoz and Derelict for the options but what is the real difference?

                  is the thinking that "! RFC1918" is potentially "leakable"? Is there a way to quantify the difference? When would one use the "!"?

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

                    I think awhile back there was some sort of issue with the not rules.. But as always you should always validate any sort of rules you put in place are actually working the way you believe they should work, etc.

                    Derelict method of actual bock makes the rules more clear cut and obvious to yes no function.  I believe he is of the mind set you do not block with an allow statement - but I do not see it that way.  Not blocking anything with that rule, the default block is what blocks.  I am just being more restrictive on my allow.

                    We have over the years gone round a few times on this - we agree to disagree if you will ;)  I do see his point clear blocks in your rules, and am a fan of that..  I don't see anything wrong with doing it that way.  But I am also a fan of min amount of rules to accomplish the goal..

                    Derelict please chime in on your take on it.. It has been a while since we have discussed this ;) heheheh

                    I don't see it right/wrong way, just a different way to skin the same cat is all.  If you had a bunch of networks to block your rules list could get quite long… Sure you could put your networks into a alias..  You really need to understand the specifics of setup, ie the breed of the cat if you will to know which way to skin might be the best option.

                    If your a fan or watch silicon valley... Its like tabs vs spaces ;)

                    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

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • DerelictD
                      Derelict LAYER 8 Netgate
                      last edited by

                      If you want to block traffic, block it. Don't rely on pass rules to block traffic. Particularly pass ! rules.

                      https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/6799

                      Chattanooga, Tennessee, USA
                      A comprehensive network diagram is worth 10,000 words and 15 conference calls.
                      DO NOT set a source address/port in a port forward or firewall rule unless you KNOW you need it!
                      Do Not Chat For Help! NO_WAN_EGRESS(TM)

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

                        See that where are difference is… That rule is not blocking anything.. Its just a specific allow vs any.. The block is default block.. Your against specific allow rules? ;)

                        Agree to disagree as said ;)

                        That redmine entry should never happen to be honest, because that sort of setup is just full blown borked of running multiple layer 3 on the same layer 2....  As I stated you should always validate your rules are working as expected..

                        So you see no use for the ! at all in a destination? Or source - you don't think it should be an option at all?

                        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

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • DerelictD
                          Derelict LAYER 8 Netgate
                          last edited by

                          The default pfBlocker DNSBL config creates that scenario.

                          I am not against specific pass rules to pass traffic that is to be passed allowing fall-through to the default deny.

                          I am against using a pass rule to ! something expecting it to function as a block rule for something.

                          If you want to block it, block it with a block rule.

                          Chattanooga, Tennessee, USA
                          A comprehensive network diagram is worth 10,000 words and 15 conference calls.
                          DO NOT set a source address/port in a port forward or firewall rule unless you KNOW you need it!
                          Do Not Chat For Help! NO_WAN_EGRESS(TM)

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

                            Which is borked ;)  If he wants to listen on a address - then create a vip in the network.. Not some 10.10.10 address or whatever it uses out of the box..

                            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

                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • DerelictD
                              Derelict LAYER 8 Netgate
                              last edited by

                              I agree. That vip should be on localhost.

                              Chattanooga, Tennessee, USA
                              A comprehensive network diagram is worth 10,000 words and 15 conference calls.
                              DO NOT set a source address/port in a port forward or firewall rule unless you KNOW you need it!
                              Do Not Chat For Help! NO_WAN_EGRESS(TM)

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