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

    Unexpected Firewall Log output

    Firewalling
    3
    6
    2.4k
    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
      nikkilocke
      last edited by

      I have a new pfSense installation, running in a VMWare VM.
      My LAN interface is 192.168.100.10, connected to a router at 192.168.100.1 which routes to subnets 192.168.3.0/24 and 192.168.1.0/24.
      I have static routes for these subnets in pfSense with 192.168.100.1 as the gateway.
      My WAN interface is 192.168.2.10, connected to an ADSL NAT router at 192.168.2.5.
      I have NAT on the pfSense too.

      I am getting repeated log entries of the form:
      WAN 192.168.2.10:43624 (ip address censored):110 TCP:F

      Why should I be getting these?
      They are presumably relics of valid NATted sessions from a machine on my LAN which periodically checks my POP mailbox (which is at that address).

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • K
        kpa
        last edited by

        http://doc.pfsense.org/index.php/Logs_show_%22blocked%22_for_traffic_from_a_legitimate_connection,_why%3F

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

          Thanks for that. I take it there is no way to avoid these appearing in the logs?

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • jimpJ
            jimp Rebel Alliance Developer Netgate
            last edited by

            @nikkilocke:

            Thanks for that. I take it there is no way to avoid these appearing in the logs?

            No, because although they are related to a connection that just closed, there is no way for the filter to know this since the state is already gone. It's sort of a catch-22: If they were part of the state, the filter would know about it, and they wouldn't be blocked. If they aren't a part of the state, they get blocked, but there is no way to not log them because it no longer thinks they are valid.

            Remember: Upvote with the ๐Ÿ‘ button for any user/post you find to be helpful, informative, or deserving of recognition!

            Need help fast? Netgate Global Support!

            Do not Chat/PM for help!

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

              Is there any way of slowing down the discard of the state, so that the FIN packet has time to arrive before the state is gone?

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • jimpJ
                jimp Rebel Alliance Developer Netgate
                last edited by

                You could try changing the firewall optimization to 'conservative' but I'm not sure if that will affect this particular type.

                Remember: Upvote with the ๐Ÿ‘ button for any user/post you find to be helpful, informative, or deserving of recognition!

                Need help fast? Netgate Global Support!

                Do not Chat/PM for help!

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