How to block RDP access in 1:1 NAT setup

[johnpoz]

Well put a block to rdp to your internal dest IP, before your allow all.

Rules are evaluated top down, first rule to trigger wins, no other rules evaluated.

[Henry]

@johnpoz That's exactly what I've done form the beginning. I've blocked all traffic from 27.50.90.100 to any and even I've added any to 27.50.90.100 but RDP is working to 27.50.90.100

[johnpoz]

NO that is not what you did... The destination is your INTERNAL IP!!! Which you have an ALLOW ALL ON!!! Though you stated you read what I linked too?

Put a rule above that last rule that blocks rdp to 192.168.0.65

The 1:1 is evaluated before you rules - so the thing you have to block is the dest internal IP.

https://docs.netgate.com/pfsense/en/latest/firewall/firewall-rule-processing-order.html

[Henry]

@johnpoz I set a rule above that to block port 3389 to 192.168.0.65 and now

pfSense Port forwarding 27.50.90.200:6665 is not working

[johnpoz]

Great! Miss read that ;)

[Henry]

@johnpoz

I brought the rules up and it's blocking 3389, how to allow traffic for 27.50.90.200:6665?

[Henry]

@johnpoz did you see this update?

[SteveITS]

Given a 1:1 NAT setup you should be able to block traffic with a firewall rule on WAN that blocks traffic from * to 192.168.0.65:3389. Remember to block both TCP and UDP.

If you're blocking that and also trying to allow traffic to WAN:6665 that is redirected to 192.168.0.65:3389 I don't know that you can block one and allow the other. Can you allow the connection by source IP? Perhaps VPN to pfSense?

You could always change Windows to listen on another port besides 3389 but port scanners will find that eventually.

[Henry]

@teamits Thank you for the update. No I can't restrict it by source IP because of many different customers connect to that. Even if I change the default RDP port, it won't block the connection.

[Henry]

@johnpoz Dude I found a way to block the connection to WAN and allow it on Port forwarding.

"Filter rule association" should set to pass for port forwarding, so all NAT traffic will pass without any rule and WAN is blocked by default.

[johnpoz]

Why are you doing 1:1 nat if you want to do port forwarding? Just not understanding what your freaking trying to accomplish exactly to be honest. Not understanding the use case at all..

[Henry]

@johnpoz 1:1 NAT is for my web-server and I needs to access it by RDP, so direct RDP should be blocked and port forwarding allowed

[johnpoz]

Why do you think you need 1:1 nat? Just do the port forwarding for the ports you need.. There is almost zero reason to do 1:1 nat unless your hosting someone else's server on an RFC1918.. 1:1 nat is for when you have so many ports you need to forward that is easier to just do 1:1. Or you have a whole block of public IPs and you want to do a range of 1:1 nat for a range of public to a range of rfc1918.

If all you want is rdp, then just forward that... How many other ports do you need open on this box that you want to do 1:1?

[Henry]

I thought 1:1 NAT is easier to setup and also I can remember the setup later easily.

Secondly, outgoing traffic to the Internet originates from the associated external IP, helps for my reporting.

I only need HTTP & HTTPS on the box.

[johnpoz]

Well if you only need http and https, just forward those.. If your forward it on a VIP the return traffic will use that VIP to return the traffic.

If you want originating traffic from this box to use your vip - just do that with a outbound nat.

BTW opening up RDP, even if you change the port is a HORRIBLE idea.. Unless you can lock it to a specific source IP

[SteveITS]

johnpoz said in How to block RDP access in 1:1 NAT setup:

if you only need http and https, just forward those

Or at least block all the other ports on the 1:1 NAT, because otherwise you're opening up file sharing, RPC, whatever else is listening on Windows on a LAN. Probably easiest to add a rule to allow HTTP/HTTPS and block the rest.

[Henry]

@teamits Yes however "1:1 NAT maps all the external ports on that IP to the internal IP but you must still have firewall rules to allow the traffic to reach the local server."

https://forum.netgate.com/topic/75917/1-1-nat-vs-port-forwarding-when-to-use-each/3

[serbus]

Hello!

Port 6665 for remote access to your network seems odd, not because IRC is odd, but because that port has been so badly abused.

https://www.speedguide.net/port.php?port=6665

You might want to pick a "safer" port, unless that is not your intent...

John

[Henry]

@serbus Thank you, very good point!

[johnpoz]

Security though obscurity is not security... Opening up rdp to the public internet no matter what port is a BAD idea!!! If you want to rdp to this box, then vpn in and then do it.