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

    Web gui access limitation

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved General pfSense Questions
    6 Posts 2 Posters 578 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.
    • N
      nagithas
      last edited by

      Hi all,

      Trying to block access to the admin Web GUI interface properly here so followed this guide: https://docs.netgate.com/pfsense/en/latest/firewall/restrict-access-to-management-interface.html
      Since I have about 15-20 interfaces I actually added a floating rule to block this instead which works on this firewall, however this firewall is in a cluster of two and I'm still able to access the secondary firewalls admin interfaces.

      Any ideas?

      Thank you!

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • stephenw10S
        stephenw10 Netgate Administrator
        last edited by

        Hmm, you mean the 'This Firewall' system alias doesn't block access to the Secondary?

        I expect it to apply equally to the Secondary once the ruleset is pushed across. Can we see the actual rule(s) you used?

        Steve

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • N
          nagithas
          last edited by

          Hi Stephen,

          I'm very sure it's just some misconfiguration on my part here.
          Screen Shot 2020-02-19 at 09.06.00.png Like I mentioned before it's a floating rule due to us having quite a lot of interfaces.
          So a test scenario is as follows, we might have a client machine on the 172.16.10.0/24 network and a dmz on 172.16.128.0/24 network. In our specific case as well the client is also allowed to connect to anything outside of our internal networks on port 80 and 443 accordingly to a rule on it's specific interface;
          Screen Shot 2020-02-19 at 09.19.04.png
          Two firewalls in a cluster configuration, firewall-1's interfaces are 172.16.10.2 and 172.16.128.2 and firewall-2 is at 172.16.10.3 and 172.16.128.3 (CARP addresses are on .1 for both networks).
          From the point of view of the client at IP 172.16.10.100 he cant reach 172.16.10.1+2, 172.16.128.1+2 but he can reach the firewall web gui at 172.16.128.3.

          The same rules are on the second firewall as well due to the sync between them.

          Let me know if you need any more information, any ideas or input would be appreciated.
          Thank you!

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • stephenw10S
            stephenw10 Netgate Administrator
            last edited by

            What about 172.16.10.3?

            Was the 172.12.128.0 subnet originally LAN? Check that the anti-lockout rule is not still enabled on the Secondary, that is not a setting that is sync'd between the nodes.

            Testing it here it works as expected once I had removed the anti-lockout from both nodes.

            Steve

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • N
              nagithas
              last edited by

              Hi again Stephen,

              That's a good point I actually hadn't done any test towards 172.16.10.3 but to answer your question I actually can't reach that one.

              The 172.16.128.0 subnet has never (afaik) been on the LAN interface.
              I think you actually found the problem and it looks like it's the anti lockout rule that's causing the issue, just tried real fast to remove it and it looks like I can't connect to the .3 address anymore.
              Will run some more test just to make sure but I think that was the issue.

              Thanks again!

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • stephenw10S
                stephenw10 Netgate Administrator
                last edited by

                Nice. Let us know if you are able to connect, that would definitely need looking at if so.

                The generated ruleset on the secondary looks good here though.

                Steve

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