PfBlockerNG v2.0 w/DNSBL

BBcan177

So to be clear, ensure that the LAN devices have only your AD DNS servers defined. Then set the AD DNS server DNS Forwarder settings to pfSense only… This way DNSBL will filter the traffic.

The resolver can be in Resolver mode or in Forwarder mode.... I recommend Resolver mode....

If you are referring to the DNS Forwarder (dnsmasq), then DNSBL will not function, as its not configured for that.

robatwork

@BBcan177:

@robatwork,

So to be clear, ensure that the LAN devices have only your AD DNS servers defined. Then set the AD DNS server DNS Forwarder settings to pfSense only… This way DNSBL will filter the traffic.

The resolver can be in Resolver mode or in Forwarder mode.... I recommend Resolver mode....

That is exactly how we are configured (in Resolver mode). Testing continues….

jim82

Hi all,

Yesterday I added 4 new lists to DNSBL, see attachment 1.

Right after I added these new lists, my DNSBL Alerts/Log stopped working, and all blocks are now shown in the "DENY" log section. See attachment 2.

Can anyone shed light as to what I have done wrong?

Thanks

BR Jim

1.JPG_thumb

2.JPG_thumb

BBcan177

Hi jim82,

In the DNSBL tab, only add DNSBL based feeds, the RW_IPBL is an IP based list that should be added to the IPv4 Tab.

Goto the General Tab, and enable Suppression and follow that with a Force Reload - All… This will remove any RFC1918 or loopback addresses that might be in a list. I am going to make this standard in the next release to avoid this issue... The Deny alerts that you see are from the DNSBL_IP firewall rule. In DNSBL, you enabled the "DNSBL_IP" option which will collect and block any IP addresses that are found in a Domain based feed.

jim82

Thanks a lot for your swift reply! Should I remove the RW_IPBL list from DNSBL?

BR Jim
EDIT: I've now removed the list from DNSBL and added it to IPv4, is this the correct way of doing it?

@BBcan177:

Hi jim82,

In the DNSBL tab, only add DNSBL based feeds, the RW_IPBL is an IP based list that should be added to the IPv4 Tab.

Goto the General Tab, and enable Suppression and follow that with a Force Reload - All… This will remove any RFC1918 or loopback addresses that might be in a list. I am going to make this standard in the next release to avoid this issue... The Deny alerts that you see are from the DNSBL_IP firewall rule. In DNSBL, you enabled the "DNSBL_IP" option which will collect and block any IP addresses that are found in a Domain based feed.

Qinn

@RonpfS:

The tables are built from MaxMind GeoIPLite2 database, pfblockerNG just take the db and create the files for it's usage. MaxMind support has been contacted about the size being 3x larger than before.

Just out of curiosity, is there any progress on this? I saw that MaxMind: Last-Modified: Tue, 02 Aug 2016 is still on August. Of course I could do a "php /usr/local/www/pfblockerng/pfblockerng.php dc", but everything is working fine (pfBlockerNG v2.1.1_4) so no need for it, as in ….if it ain't broke, than don't try to fix it ;)

Cheers Qinn

varazir

Hello I keep getting this in the update log

Could not open ISO

UPDATE PROCESS START [ 10/09/16 10:30:37 ]

===[  DNSBL Process  ]================================================

[ hphost_partial ]	 exists.
[ mvps_hosts ]		 exists.
[ SomeoneWhoCares ]	 exists.
[ BBcan177 ]		 exists.
[ DNSBL_IP ]		 Updating aliastable... 
  no changes.
  Total IP count = 1

===[  Continent Process  ]============================================

Could not open ISO [ SH_v4 ]

[ pfB_Africa_v4 ]	 exists.
Could not open ISO [ AP_v4 ]

Could not open ISO [ CX_v4 ]

Could not open ISO [ CC_v4 ]

[ pfB_Asia_v4 ]		 exists. [ 10/09/16 10:30:38 ]
Could not open ISO [ PN_v4 ]

[ pfB_Oceania_v4 ]	 exists.
[ pfB_SAmerica_v4 ]	 exists.
[ pfB_Top_v4 ]		 exists.
[ pfB_Top_v6 ]		 exists. [ 10/09/16 10:30:42 ]
[ pfB_PS_v4 ]		 exists.

===[  IPv4 Process  ]=================================================

===[  IPv6 Process  ]=================================================

===[  Aliastables / Rules  ]==========================================

No changes to Firewall rules, skipping Filter Reload
No Changes to Aliases, Skipping pfctl Update

 UPDATE PROCESS ENDED [ 10/09/16 10:30:43 ]

BBcan177

@varazir:

Could not open ISO [ SH_v4 ]
Could not open ISO [ AP_v4 ]
Could not open ISO [ CX_v4 ]
Could not open ISO [ CC_v4 ]
Could not open ISO [ PN_v4 ]

Yes this is an issue with the MaxMind monthly database changes not reporting on some GeoIPs… I have a fix for this which will be in the next release which will add a "placeholder" for all GeoIPs regardless if they are not defined by MaxMind... Just ignore for the time being...

BBcan177

@jim82:

Thanks a lot for your swift reply! Should I remove the RW_IPBL list from DNSBL?
EDIT: I've now removed the list from DNSBL and added it to IPv4, is this the correct way of doing it?

Yes… remove from DNSBL and Add the RW_IPBL to the IPv4 tab...

BBcan177

@Qinn:

Just out of curiosity, is there any progress on this? I saw that MaxMind: Last-Modified: Tue, 02 Aug 2016 is still on August. Of course I could do a "php /usr/local/www/pfblockerng/pfblockerng.php dc", but everything is working fine (pfBlockerNG v2.1.1_4) so no need for it, as in ….if it ain't broke, than don't try to fix it ;)

Do you have any MaxMind update errors in /var/log/pfblockerng/geoip.log?

I would manually run the update and see if it reports any errors…

php /usr/local/www/pfblockerng/pfblockerng.php dc

regne

Hi.

I keep watching in the general system log entries like this:
*nginx: 2016/10/10 19:04:39 [error] 23499#100098: 737 open() "/usr/local/www/utsync.ashx" failed (2: No such file or directory),client: 10.10.10.1, server: , request: "GET /utsync.ashx?eid=50052&et=0&fp=2X9bJ6tnRz5B2L0llgZVTWayaMg4TcNYwOj-CDyEPl1k&return=http%3A%2F%2Fps.eyeota.net%2Fmatch%3Fbid%3Dr8hrb20%26uid%3Dnil HTTP/1.1", host: "ml314.com", referrer: "http://viraliq.com/15-musicians-didnt-know-passed?utm_source=revcontent&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=desktop&utm_content_id=996712&utm_boost_id=116872&utm_targeting=editorial%20news&utm_widget_id=31653"

I understand that DNSBL has successfully diverted the DNS petition to server 10.10.10.1 and the requested file is not there but is, logging these messages, the right behavior?

Is there a way to disable them?. They are populating the system logs and hiding important stuff.

erwintwr

just wanted to give a personal thank you to bbcan for his committed FREE support on this amazing addon.

you sir are a legend :)

Qinn

@BBcan177:

@Qinn:

Just out of curiosity, is there any progress on this? I saw that MaxMind: Last-Modified: Tue, 02 Aug 2016 is still on August. Of course I could do a "php /usr/local/www/pfblockerng/pfblockerng.php dc", but everything is working fine (pfBlockerNG v2.1.1_4) so no need for it, as in ….if it ain't broke, than don't try to fix it ;)

Do you have any MaxMind update errors in /var/log/pfblockerng/geoip.log?

I would manually run the update and see if it reports any errors…
php /usr/local/www/pfblockerng/pfblockerng.php dc

I encoutered no errors, so no log file. Btw I am on a APU2C4, 2.3.2-RELEASE-p1 (amd64) and pfBlockerNG 2.1.1_4

gcu_greyarea

pfBlockerNG on Bridge

Just wondering if anybody else has seen this.

I run a Bridged Setup (WAN-LAN) and have setup the Management IP on the Bridge Interface (192.168.15.215). This Interface also listens on other ports (OpenVPN , NTP) including 53 for unbound.

DNSBL listens on the default ports and the VIP is 192.168.15.216. I know that ideally this would be a different net, but DNSBL appears to work fine.

I do get strange DNSBL Log entries which I do not understand:
e.g.
DNSBL Recject,Oct 22 16:09:42,192.168.15.216,192.168.15.1, | / |

The pfBlcokerNG Alerts Tab shows the same entry with "No Match" . i.e. unable to determine which DNSBL Feed triggered the "Reject"

Ip Address 192.168.15.1 is the gateway (an ISP Provided router I cannot replace). I don't know why 192.168.15.1 would want to contact the DNSBL VIP?

gcu_greyarea

I was able to narrow down the issue through further testing.

The log entry and its assorted Alert ("No Match") …

DNSBL Recject,Oct 22 16:09:42,192.168.15.216,192.168.15.1, | / |

... can be reproduced by manually testing the DNSBL VIP Ports. e.g. http://vip-ip:80 (8081) . The error is generated for both https and https on ports (80, 8081, 443, 8433)

As it turns out our ISP Provided router wants to connect to the DNSBL VIP IP via port 80 (Seen via packet capture)...
Since WAN and LAN Interfaces are Bridged and filtering is done on the Bridge IF I have no way of blocking the Routers connection attempts...

blueduckdock

Quick Q- in the sync section there is "Sync to configured backup server." Is this for CARP installs?
I'd like to have my HQ box sync not only to the other carp member but also our regional offices. Wondering if/how this works.

xbipin

sorry if this seems like a basic question as this thread is extremely long so just managed to read around 20% of it.

im new to pfblockerng and what i was looking for is be able to block DNS on a per host basis which i dont seem to be able to make it work, as soon as i try to block youtube.com it aplies to unbound in general for every1.

is it even possible to block dns on a per host basis as most other threads i read was using opendns but that too it applies in general for every1

blueduckdock

@xbipin:

sorry if this seems like a basic question as this thread is extremely long so just managed to read around 20% of it.

im new to pfblockerng and what i was looking for is be able to block DNS on a per host basis which i dont seem to be able to make it work, as soon as i try to block youtube.com it aplies to unbound in general for every1.

is it even possible to block dns on a per host basis as most other threads i read was using opendns but that too it applies in general for every1

You could put those hosts on a separate interface. I would think that'd be easy enough.

xbipin

@blueduckdock:

@xbipin:

sorry if this seems like a basic question as this thread is extremely long so just managed to read around 20% of it.

im new to pfblockerng and what i was looking for is be able to block DNS on a per host basis which i dont seem to be able to make it work, as soon as i try to block youtube.com it aplies to unbound in general for every1.

is it even possible to block dns on a per host basis as most other threads i read was using opendns but that too it applies in general for every1

You could put those hosts on a separate interface. I would think that'd be easy enough.

well we have a small LAN and creating separate interfaces using vlans would be some what of a overkill.
if unbound could serve DNS queries per host that would solve this as i believe it would be a very useful feature and many would be interested in.

gcu_greyarea

You could Configure your DHCP server and specify the DNS option as external DNS server e.g. Google DNS.
For the small number if hosts you need to filter create a static DHCP Mapping(Reservation) and specify the unbound DNS server on the LAN Address.
Create an IP alias for these hosts and create a firewall rule to stop them acciessing any other DNS servers.

Obviously this creates a problem when all hosts must use the unbound resolver.

Other options would be - running a few virtual instances of pfSense -each with their own DnS resolver and DNSBLs. Then specify custom DNS servers via DHCP mappings.