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

PfSense not blocking attacker (FIXED)

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved General pfSense Questions
35 Posts 10 Posters 5.9k 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.
  • S
    staroflaw
    last edited by Oct 10, 2014, 12:36 PM Oct 10, 2014, 9:28 AM

    staroflaw Will you post when you find a solution to your problem? Often after solving the problem, nothing is heard thereafter ;-)

    I know what you mean, I will deferential post if I fix it.

    Whatever you do, don't wipe it and reinstall it…
    If you did that, it might fix it without ever satisfying the curiosity of the masses.

    I also want to understand why its not working correctly, just in case I see the happen again.

    This attack has now been going for 5 days, they have made over 1,728000 requests.
    I have reported it to my ISP and Ecatel LTD the owner of that IP.

    My ISP says they cannot do anything about it unless they have a large amount of complaints relating to that IP. I totally understand that.
    Ecatel LTD say….... "Nothing" I have had no response from them at all. I have contacted them two times now with LOG's and nothing.

    Star.

    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
    • C
      chpalmer
      last edited by Oct 10, 2014, 5:24 PM

      Star:

      On your WAN rule to block this guy-

      Make sure that Logging is checked…

      On the pass/block/recject option at the top of the rule- set to reject (just to test) and see what the firewall logs show...

      Set "Destination" to your server LAN IP address.

      Triggering snowflakes one by one..
      Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-4590T CPU @ 2.00GHz on an M400 WG box.

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • J
        johnpoz LAYER 8 Global Moderator
        last edited by Oct 10, 2014, 6:56 PM

        so how exactly is he getting in and hitting your webserver.  I don't see any rules that would be there from a port forward - your wan rules don't show any allows other than icmp from one IP.

        So only inbound traffic would be from a state that client on lan created the connection.

        look at your state table and filter for his IP and what do you see for states?

        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 0
        • S
          staroflaw
          last edited by Oct 10, 2014, 10:43 PM Oct 10, 2014, 10:27 PM

          I don't see any rules that would be there from a port forward

          johnpoz you are absolutely correct. I assumed the wan rule was created automatically for you but as it is clearly not there, obviously not. The answer was in front of me all along. My HTTP Filter rule association was set to PASS. That’s why it just ignored my Block WAN rule.
          I don’t know how I missed this!

          I can now confirm it is blocking.
          A BIG thank you to all who participated in the discussion and for all help offered.

          Star.

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • S
            staroflaw
            last edited by Oct 10, 2014, 10:31 PM

            Here is how I setup my HTTP NAT correctly.

            Filter rule association > Create new associated filter rule.

            Apply changes.

            Then under Rules add your block rule.

            Make sure the block rule is above everything else.

            You can also see the new rule added NAT HTTP_Server

            Star.

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • J
              johnpoz LAYER 8 Global Moderator
              last edited by Oct 10, 2014, 10:45 PM

              jimp?  I don't see anywhere where jimp pointed out anything ;)

              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 0
              • S
                staroflaw
                last edited by Oct 10, 2014, 10:56 PM Oct 10, 2014, 10:46 PM

                lol. typo.  ;D

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • K
                  kejianshi
                  last edited by Oct 10, 2014, 11:22 PM Oct 10, 2014, 11:10 PM

                  I don't remember any mention of a HTTP pass rule…  (-:
                  Which gets me back to my original theory of there must be a pass rule somewhere.

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • J
                    johnpoz LAYER 8 Global Moderator
                    last edited by Oct 10, 2014, 11:32 PM

                    he had has port forward set to pass vs creating a rule… I never understand why people change it from the default of create new rule if you they don't fully understand what they are doing ;)

                    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 0
                    • K
                      kejianshi
                      last edited by Oct 10, 2014, 11:42 PM

                      Simple mistake, I'm sure.

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • S
                        staroflaw
                        last edited by Oct 10, 2014, 11:54 PM Oct 10, 2014, 11:49 PM

                        Simple mistake, I'm sure.

                        Yes it was.  :)

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        35 out of 35
                        • First post
                          35/35
                          Last post
                        Copyright 2025 Rubicon Communications LLC (Netgate). All rights reserved.
                          This community forum collects and processes your personal information.
                          consent.not_received