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

    PfBlockerNG

    pfBlockerNG
    210
    1.2k
    1.4m
    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.
    • C
      coliflower
      last edited by

      @doktornotor:

      @Asterix:

      Educate me where you see the default deny inbound global (all countries) rule on a base pfSense install.

      Nowhere. It's not visible, it's implicit. Anything not allowed is denied by default. Unless you have some "allow from any" rule you wish to restrict via country blocking on your WAN, there's just no point in creating inbound country-based rules at all.

      If everything is blocked on WAN-inbound per default / implicit, what is there reason (need) of having two recommended / additional rules on WAN ?

      1. Block private networks and loopback addresses
      2. Block boon networks

      Unless you have some "allow from any“ rule …

      Do you mean on WAN-interface or on LAN-interface ?

      Thanks a lot in advance !

      APU1D4 | pfSense 2.3.4 (amd64) | LAGG (LACP) <-> HP-1820-24G | pfBlockerNG | Suricata | WAN DOWN/UP 100/10

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • M
        Mr. Jingles
        last edited by

        It's either a bug or a feature (old IT joke from when I was younger  ;D ).

        pfbl67anp.jpg
        pfbl67anp.jpg_thumb

        6 and a half billion people know that they are stupid, agressive, lower life forms.

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • RonpfSR
          RonpfS
          last edited by

          I have some alerts like that in dnsbl.log, last one was Aug 9

          DNSBL Reject HTTPS,Aug 09 19:21:32,watson.microsoft.com

          That was probably with pfBlockerNG-2.1.1_1, what version are you using now?

          From the Info infoblock under Firewall / pfBlockerNG / DNSBL

          So not a bug or a feature, more a limitation of the pfBlockerNG DNSBL Web Server.

          InfoBoxDNSBL.png
          InfoBoxDNSBL.png_thumb

          2.4.5-RELEASE-p1 (amd64)
          Intel Core2 Quad CPU Q8400 @ 2.66GHz 8GB
          Backup 0.5_5, Bandwidthd 0.7.4_4, Cron 0.3.7_5, pfBlockerNG-devel 3.0.0_16, Status_Traffic_Totals 2.3.1_1, System_Patches 1.2_5

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • C
            coliflower
            last edited by

            Just finished to read the whole thread, uff ..
            Thanks to BBCan for the package and this thread, I am quit new to pfSense so I learned a lot!

            WAN = INbound, don’t BLOCK the world, the world ist blocked by default, PASS only what you need and take care on that …
            LAN = OUTbound, PASS what you need first and BLOCK all afterwards.

            That two rules are most important to me, afterwards I can take care on the scenarios I need.

            Thanks once again !!

            APU1D4 | pfSense 2.3.4 (amd64) | LAGG (LACP) <-> HP-1820-24G | pfBlockerNG | Suricata | WAN DOWN/UP 100/10

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • C
              coliflower
              last edited by

              Maybe there is one who is able to answer to me why are there two BLOCK-rules, bogon-networks and private-networks if the WAN is BLOCKED by default …?

              Thanks again in advance !!

              @coliflower:

              @doktornotor:

              @Asterix:

              Educate me where you see the default deny inbound global (all countries) rule on a base pfSense install.

              Nowhere. It's not visible, it's implicit. Anything not allowed is denied by default. Unless you have some "allow from any" rule you wish to restrict via country blocking on your WAN, there's just no point in creating inbound country-based rules at all.

              If everything is blocked on WAN-inbound per default / implicit, what is there reason (need) of having two recommended / additional rules on WAN ?

              1. Block private networks and loopback addresses
              2. Block boon networks

              Unless you have some "allow from any“ rule …

              Do you mean on WAN-interface or on LAN-interface ?

              Thanks a lot in advance !

              APU1D4 | pfSense 2.3.4 (amd64) | LAGG (LACP) <-> HP-1820-24G | pfBlockerNG | Suricata | WAN DOWN/UP 100/10

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • D
                digdug3
                last edited by

                Those can be enabled/disabled on the interface itself.

                These are ip-addresses that should never exist on the WAN side (with the execption if you have a router on the WAN side that's not in bridge mode)

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • C
                  coliflower
                  last edited by

                  Thank you digdug3 !

                  That helped finally:

                  execption if you have a router on the WAN side that's not in bridge mode

                  APU1D4 | pfSense 2.3.4 (amd64) | LAGG (LACP) <-> HP-1820-24G | pfBlockerNG | Suricata | WAN DOWN/UP 100/10

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • BBcan177B
                    BBcan177 Moderator
                    last edited by

                    Arbor Networks Feeds discontinued:
                    https://forum.pfsense.org/index.php?topic=122237.0

                    "Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it."

                    Website: http://pfBlockerNG.com
                    Twitter: @BBcan177  #pfBlockerNG
                    Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/pfBlockerNG/new/

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • mtarboxM
                      mtarbox
                      last edited by

                      I know that this thread is a little older now.
                      I utilized the php script that Dok presented.
                      Should I go through and delete the failed downloads or what?
                      [ pfB_MAIL - ToastedSpam ] Download FAIL [ 03/19/17 18:50:22 ] 
                      [ pfB_MAIL - VirBL ] Download FAIL [ 03/19/17 18:45:01 ]
                      [ pfB_SEC1 - MalwareGroup ] Download FAIL [ 03/19/17 18:35:56 ]
                      [ pfB_PRI3 - Geopsy ] Download FAIL [ 03/19/17 18:35:33 ]
                      [ pfB_PRI3 - VMX ] Download FAIL [ 03/19/17 18:35:31 ]
                      [ pfB_PRI3 - DangerRulez ] Download FAIL [ 03/19/17 18:35:03 ]
                      [ pfB_PRI2 - HoneyPot ] Download FAIL [ 03/19/17 18:34:41 ]
                      [ pfB_PRI1 - dShield_Block ] Download FAIL [ 03/19/17 18:33:09 ]
                      [ pfB_PRI1 - Abuse_Spyeye ] Download FAIL [ 03/19/17 18:32:51 ]
                      [ pfB_MAIL - URIBL ] Download FAIL [ 03/19/17 18:29:37 ]
                      [ pfB_MAIL - ToastedSpam ] Download FAIL [ 03/19/17 18:29:35 ]
                      [ pfB_MAIL - VirBL ] Download FAIL [ 03/19/17 18:25:05 ]
                      [ pfB_SEC1 - MalwareGroup ] Download FAIL [ 03/19/17 18:15:43 ]
                      [ pfB_PRI3 - Geopsy ] Download FAIL [ 03/19/17 18:15:03 ]
                      [ pfB_PRI3 - VMX ] Download FAIL [ 03/19/17 18:14:55 ]
                      [ pfB_PRI3 - DangerRulez ] Download FAIL [ 03/19/17 18:14:17 ]
                      [ pfB_PRI2 - HoneyPot ] Download FAIL [ 03/19/17 18:13:51 ]
                      [ pfB_PRI1 - dShield_Block ] Download FAIL [ 03/19/17 18:11:35 ]

                      Si vis pacem, para pactum.

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • mtarboxM
                        mtarbox
                        last edited by

                        I went through each one that failed, retried them, and disabled the ones that failed again,
                        Then I attempted to go to each site, and if the site was no longer in existence, then I deleted.
                        Answered my own question without getting yelled at!

                        Si vis pacem, para pactum.

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • BBcan177B
                          BBcan177 Moderator
                          last edited by

                          @mtarbox:

                          I went through each one that failed, retried them, and disabled the ones that failed again,
                          Then I attempted to go to each site, and if the site was no longer in existence, then I deleted.
                          Answered my own question without getting yelled at!

                          The script is a little dated. Some feeds have changed…. some down... so always best to open the site in a browser and check it out....

                          The next version of the package will have an automated Feeds Management Tab, which should make this process easier to manage.

                          "Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it."

                          Website: http://pfBlockerNG.com
                          Twitter: @BBcan177  #pfBlockerNG
                          Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/pfBlockerNG/new/

                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • ?
                            Guest
                            last edited by

                            The next version of the package will have an automated Feeds Management Tab, which should make this process easier to manage.

                            +1 from me for that! This might be a cool rich Option for us all, to get taps named like Malware, Virus, ect.
                            and insert there the links or URLs to several lists and perhaps a little "+" button to create his own new tap!
                            Perhaps I mean ;)

                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • SLIMaxPowerS
                              SLIMaxPower
                              last edited by

                              Dropbox is block.  NET::ERR_CERT_AUTHORITY_INVALID

                              grep result.

                              grep "dropbox.com" /var/unbound/pfb_dnsbl.conf
                              local-data: "dl.dropbox.com 60 IN A 10.10.10.1"
                              local-data: "dropbox.com.azamgold.com 60 IN A 10.10.10.1"
                              local-data: "dropbox.com.paki-library.com 60 IN A 10.10.10.1"
                              local-data: "dropbox.com.sexvoorlichting.com 60 IN A 10.10.10.1"
                              local-data: "www.dropbox.com 60 IN A 10.10.10.1"

                              It seems Iblock is causing the issue. DNSBL alerts says the domain is already in the whitelist.

                              And now google is doing the same thing.

                              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                              • BBcan177B
                                BBcan177 Moderator
                                last edited by

                                @SLIMaxPower:

                                Dropbox is block.  NET::ERR_CERT_AUTHORITY_INVALID

                                grep result.

                                grep "dropbox.com" /var/unbound/pfb_dnsbl.conf
                                local-data: "dl.dropbox.com 60 IN A 10.10.10.1"
                                local-data: "dropbox.com.azamgold.com 60 IN A 10.10.10.1"
                                local-data: "dropbox.com.paki-library.com 60 IN A 10.10.10.1"
                                local-data: "dropbox.com.sexvoorlichting.com 60 IN A 10.10.10.1"
                                local-data: "www.dropbox.com 60 IN A 10.10.10.1"

                                It seems Iblock is causing the issue. DNSBL alerts says the domain is already in the whitelist.

                                And now google is doing the same thing.

                                IBlock feeds are IP based… What your showing here is from DNSBL...

                                grep "dropbox" /var/db/pfblockerng/dnsbl/*

                                If you have "dropbox.com" in the whitelist, that won't remove "www.dropbox.com"
                                Re-edit the DNSBL Whitelist and remove the dropbox entry, then use the Alerts Tab "+" whitelist icon to whitelist it again…. You can also whitelist all sub-domans if you wish... Follow the whitelist prompts.

                                "Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it."

                                Website: http://pfBlockerNG.com
                                Twitter: @BBcan177  #pfBlockerNG
                                Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/pfBlockerNG/new/

                                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                • SLIMaxPowerS
                                  SLIMaxPower
                                  last edited by

                                  The firewall is now integrated into the home network.

                                  iBlock lists have been disabled as this was causing too many https blocks.

                                  Firewall IPv6 stuff:

                                  Jun 3 16:59:23 ► WAN Block all IPv6 (1000000004)   [fd2a:bc2b:39d8:0:215:17ff:fe93:cc34]:42220   [2600:1406:32::43]:53 UDP
                                  Jun 3 16:59:23 ► WAN Block all IPv6 (1000000004)   [fd2a:bc2b:39d8:0:215:17ff:fe93:cc34]:34926   [2600:1401:2::43]:53 UDP
                                  Jun 3 16:59:23 ► WAN Block all IPv6 (1000000004)   [fd2a:bc2b:39d8:0:215:17ff:fe93:cc34]:65407   [2600:1408:1c::43]:53 UDP
                                  Jun 3 16:59:23 ► WAN Block all IPv6 (1000000004)   [fd2a:bc2b:39d8:0:215:17ff:fe93:cc34]:53784   [2600:1480:1::43]:53 UDP
                                  Jun 3 16:59:22 ► WAN Block all IPv6 (1000000004)   [fd2a:bc2b:39d8:0:215:17ff:fe93:cc34]:33499   [2a01:111:2032:1::5]:53 UDP
                                  Jun 3 16:59:22 ► WAN Block all IPv6 (1000000004)   [fd2a:bc2b:39d8:0:215:17ff:fe93:cc34]:58694   [2620:0:37::53]:53 UDP
                                  Jun 3 16:59:22 ► WAN Block all IPv6 (1000000004)   [fd2a:bc2b:39d8:0:215:17ff:fe93:cc34]:52594   [2620:0:32::53]:53 UDP
                                  Jun 3 16:59:22 ► WAN Block all IPv6 (1000000004)   [fd2a:bc2b:39d8:0:215:17ff:fe93:cc34]:29910   [2600:1480:1::c0]:53 UDP
                                  Jun 3 16:59:22 ► WAN Block all IPv6 (1000000004)   [fd2a:bc2b:39d8:0:215:17ff:fe93:cc34]:64372   [2600:1406:32::c2]:53 UDP
                                  Jun 3 16:59:22 ► WAN Block all IPv6 (1000000004)   [fd2a:bc2b:39d8:0:215:17ff:fe93:cc34]:4792   [2600:1480:e800::c0]:53 UDP
                                  Jun 3 16:59:22 ► WAN Block all IPv6 (1000000004)   [fd2a:bc2b:39d8:0:215:17ff:fe93:cc34]:56634   [2620:0:32::53]:53 UDP
                                  Jun 3 16:59:22 ► WAN Block all IPv6 (1000000004)   [fd2a:bc2b:39d8:0:215:17ff:fe93:cc34]:62068   [2620:0:34::53]:53 UDP
                                  Jun 3 16:59:22 ► WAN Block all IPv6 (1000000004)   [fd2a:bc2b:39d8:0:215:17ff:fe93:cc34]:33253   [2600:1401:1::41]:53 UDP
                                  Jun 3 16:59:22 ► WAN Block all IPv6 (1000000004)   [fd2a:bc2b:39d8:0:215:17ff:fe93:cc34]:6709   [2600:1401:2::42]:53 UDP

                                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                  • M
                                    mifronte
                                    last edited by

                                    I just installed pfBlockerNG and tried to configure pfBlockerNG, IPV4, and DNSBL using google searches.  Needless to say, I followed some contradicting and outdated "tutorials".  So I decided that I will start at the beginning of this thread and read the entire thread before I try to configure anything.

                                    To revert my pfSense back to prior installing and configuring pfBlockerNG and all the other components (i.e. IPV4, DNBL), I uninstalled pfBlockerNG and deleted all the auto generated rules and aliases.  Is there anything else I need to undo?

                                    SuperMicro Atom C2758 A1SRI-2758F 16GB
                                    2.7.2 (amd64)

                                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                    • BBcan177B
                                      BBcan177 Moderator
                                      last edited by

                                      @mifronte:

                                      To revert my pfSense back to prior installing and configuring pfBlockerNG and all the other components (i.e. IPV4, DNBL), I uninstalled pfBlockerNG and deleted all the auto generated rules and aliases.  Is there anything else I need to undo?

                                      There are notes in the General tab on how to do that… Uncheck "Enable" and "Keep" then save... This will clear out all the downloaded files... Then re-enable both followed by a Force Update command....

                                      If you want to start from complete scratch. Then Uncheck "Keep",  save, uninstall the pkg. Then re-install it ...

                                      Hope that helps!

                                      "Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it."

                                      Website: http://pfBlockerNG.com
                                      Twitter: @BBcan177  #pfBlockerNG
                                      Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/pfBlockerNG/new/

                                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                      • H
                                        HotRod48m
                                        last edited by

                                        Having a problem with GSN Gaming Casino on Facebook with pfblockerNG enabled on my server. Tried whitelisting everything I thought could be the cause but still not getting through. Has this been reported by anyone else and/or resolved? I did a fairly extensive search but didn't turn up anything useful (to me) about how to allow the traffic.

                                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                        • kklouzalK
                                          kklouzal
                                          last edited by

                                          Issue with pfBlockerNG + Unbound + DNSBL when RAM Disk is enabled.

                                          Unbound fails to start after system reboot with RAM Disk enabled.
                                          User must force Update + Reload CRON for Unbound to successfully startup.

                                          The file '/var/unbound/pfb_dnsbl.conf' is removed upon system reboot with RAM Disk enabled thus forced CRON to regenerate file is the only way to get Unbound started again.

                                          We need the option to move this file inside pfBlocker's settings OR an option to preserve this file (and other settings/caches within pfBlocker) across system reboots when RAM Disk is enabled.

                                          Please as this currently requires manual user input every time the machine is rebooted to restore services!!

                                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                          • P
                                            pfBasic Banned
                                            last edited by

                                            Hmmm, I'm using pfBNG, DNSBL, Unbound - Resolving, and RAM disks and I don't have to do any of that, not for a normal reboot, a hard shutdown, or a power outage.

                                            I do have servicewatchdog monitoring Unbound, but that wouldn't Force Update & Reload.

                                            I am using 2.4.0 BETA, possibly something has been changed there that allows this to work?

                                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                            • First post
                                              Last post