On 2015-11-25 05:36:07 (-0500), J David wrote:
> It appears that “synproxy state” rules cause TCPs connection to be
> negotiated without any options except MSS.
>
...
> Is this behavior intentional? If so, perhaps it should be mentioned
> on the man page? If not, should we open a bug report on
It appears that “synproxy state” rules cause TCPs connection to be
negotiated without any options except MSS.
Notably, it prevents the connection from using window scaling and
selective-ACK, which can seriously limit throughput in many cases.
Here’s a tcpdump of SYN and SYN ACK for a client and s
Dear all,
I've setup a pf firewall with synproxy. I've ran a simulated DDoS for a
service behind pf, everything went fine, until I've found that rarely a
tcp connection got established to the service behind pf.
The reason was (due to a configuraion problem) that the firewall actually
was con
On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 05:40:16AM +, Anders N. wrote:
A> Hi. I've got a server running pf that has been displaying some odd (at least
to me) behavior.
A>
A> I use the "synproxy state"[1] option quite a few times in my config without
any ill effects that I've noticed until now. I realized it
Hi. I've got a server running pf that has been displaying some odd (at least to
me) behavior.
I use the "synproxy state"[1] option quite a few times in my config without any
ill effects that I've noticed until now. I realized it was on every open port
except for ssh, so I added it to my ssh lin
On 5/18/2012 17:56, Ermal Luçi wrote:
Yeah its known behaviour though i am not sure there is a PR related to it.
I might have a solution but not sure when i can produce a patch for this.
Which FreeBSD version are you on, i thought that with carp(4)
rearangment of not using ifnets this solved its
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 2:15 PM, Adam Strohl
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've noticed that when I use "synproxy state" on a rule and a connection
> comes in to an IP on a CARP interface the connection opens but never gets
> passed on to the process as it should.
>
> For example:
>
> pass in on $ext_if pro
Hello,
I've noticed that when I use "synproxy state" on a rule and a connection
comes in to an IP on a CARP interface the connection opens but never
gets passed on to the process as it should.
For example:
pass in on $ext_if proto tcp from any to any port ssh flags S/SA
synproxy state
Wil
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 07:59:20PM -0700, Justin wrote:
>Confirmed - synproxy works great if the synproxy machine is the
> default gateway for the end host. Sadly this means scalability (adding
> multiple synproxy boxes) is not possible, nor is it possible to filter a
> specific IP out of t
On 7/29/10, Ryan McBride wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 07:59:20PM -0700, Justin wrote:
> > Sadly this means scalability (adding multiple synproxy boxes) is not
> > possible,
...
> synproxy works by completing the 3-way handshake with the source first,
> then negotiating a separate 3-way h
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 07:59:20PM -0700, Justin wrote:
>Confirmed - synproxy works great if the synproxy machine is the
> default gateway for the end host.
Yes, PF has to handle every packet of a synproxy'd connection.
> Sadly this means scalability (adding multiple synproxy boxes) is not
So the clients default gateway out is the switch, which doesn't send
all traffic back over the PF machine. From what you've described, the
PF synproxy box would literally have to be inline and the default
gateway.
internet - em0 | pf | e
-> client
\--/
So the clients default gateway out is the switch, which doesn't send
all traffic back over the PF machine. From what you've described, the
PF synproxy box would literally have to be inline and the default gateway.
internet - em0 | pf | em1 -> client
Is this the cas
Logged to files and dumped;
Outside:
19:58:09.571810 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 118, id 12726, offset 0, flags [DF],
proto TCP
(6), length 52)
REMOTE_CLIENT.56270 > TARGET_HOST.80: Flags [S], cksum 0xb15f
(correct), se
q 3641874856, win 8192, options [mss 1460,nop,wscale 2,nop,nop,sackOK],
length 0
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 01:04:42PM -0700, Justin wrote:
> Logged to files and dumped;
>
> Outside:
> 19:58:09.571810 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 118, id 12726, offset 0, flags [DF],
> proto TCP
> (6), length 52)
> REMOTE_CLIENT.56270 > TARGET_HOST.80: Flags [S], cksum 0xb15f
> (correct), se
> q 364187
Logged to files and dumped;
Outside:
19:58:09.571810 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 118, id 12726, offset 0, flags [DF],
proto TCP
(6), length 52)
REMOTE_CLIENT.56270 > TARGET_HOST.80: Flags [S], cksum 0xb15f
(correct), se
q 3641874856, win 8192, options [mss 1460,nop,wscale 2,nop,nop,sackOK],
length 0
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 07:24:56PM -0700, Justin wrote:
> - tcpdumps showing the initial connect attempt (logs below were
> furhter along the process);
>
> external:
> 02:21:25.595977 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 118, id 10020, offset 0, flags [DF],
> proto TCP
> (6), length 52)
> REMOTE_VIEWING_HOST
- tcpdumps showing the initial connect attempt (logs below were
furhter along the process);
external:
02:21:25.595977 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 118, id 10020, offset 0, flags [DF],
proto TCP
(6), length 52)
REMOTE_VIEWING_HOST.53782 > CLIENT_DESTINATION_IP.80: Flags [S],
cksum 0x537b (correct)
Hello Daniel,
Didn't get any sort of information from pfctl -x misc. Here's the
output from the commands you suggested;
(3 SSH connections to run/log the tcpdump and pfctl outputs, 1 attempted
proxy)
Pre HTTP end host attempt;
# pfctl -vvsi
No ALTQ support in kernel
ALTQ related funct
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 05:26:21AM -0700, Justin wrote:
> When using synproxy state - the connection never completes. If we change
> synproxy to keep, everything works fine. Alternately, if the service in
> question is running locally on the actual firewall itself, I'll see
> state entries show
On Mon, July 26, 2010 6:02 pm, Justin wrote:
> ... it's not an if_bridge, thanks.
>
>
> On 7/26/2010 7:05 AM, Denny Lin wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 05:26:21AM -0700, Justin wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Hello all - I've tried searching the list but it seems something is
>>> broken and I'm getting 500 er
... it's not an if_bridge, thanks.
On 7/26/2010 7:05 AM, Denny Lin wrote:
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 05:26:21AM -0700, Justin wrote:
Hello all - I've tried searching the list but it seems something is
broken and I'm getting 500 errors. Alas,
Is there something unique about using synprox
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 05:26:21AM -0700, Justin wrote:
>Hello all - I've tried searching the list but it seems something is
> broken and I'm getting 500 errors. Alas,
>
> Is there something unique about using synproxy in a gateway style
> firewall that isn't outlined in the PF manuals? Her
Hello all - I've tried searching the list but it seems something is
broken and I'm getting 500 errors. Alas,
Is there something unique about using synproxy in a gateway style
firewall that isn't outlined in the PF manuals? Here's the scenario:
Internet -> em0 | pf rules | em1 -> target
> On Friday 08 January 2010 06:04:34 Peter wrote:
>> iH,
>>Playing around with FIBs and jails.
>>
>> The host system is on a private 172.xxx network with a gateway of
>> 172.xxx
>> going through a NAT box for internet. [fib 0]
>>
>> The jail has only a public IP, on fib 1 [with gateway being IS
On Friday 08 January 2010 06:04:34 Peter wrote:
> iH,
>Playing around with FIBs and jails.
>
> The host system is on a private 172.xxx network with a gateway of 172.xxx
> going through a NAT box for internet. [fib 0]
>
> The jail has only a public IP, on fib 1 [with gateway being ISP router]
iH,
Playing around with FIBs and jails.
The host system is on a private 172.xxx network with a gateway of 172.xxx
going through a NAT box for internet. [fib 0]
The jail has only a public IP, on fib 1 [with gateway being ISP router]
With this, the jail is working fine.
What I'm trying to acco
Hi!
Last week I discovered an LOR on 7-STABLE (last build: 2008-Aug-17,
RELENG_7).
I can easily recreate the problem when running a synproxy state rule for
incoming tcp connections and ssh'ing to my box.
W/o using synproxy state (keep'ing state instead), no LOR takes place.
lock order reversa
What are the $rota1 and $rota2 macroes set to?
oops, I made first the example in portuguese to send to another list,
and used the same example in the english message.
Actually this are $route1 and $route2.
Daniel in his message answered my question very well. That was the
answer I needed.
I do
On 10/23/06, Aristeu Gil Alves Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
route1="( ed0 gw-isp1 )"
route2="( ed1 gw-isp2 )"
rdr on $if_isp1 proto tcp to port 25 -> 192.168.0.2 port 25
rdr on $if_isp2 proto tcp to port 25 -> 192.168.0.2 port 25
block in log all
pass in quick on $if_isp1 reply-to $rota1 pr
The reply-to is not working when it is used with synproxy.
The scenario is described bellow:
gw-isp1 e gw-isp2 are the IP from ISP 1 and 2 gateways:
/etc/pf.conf
if_isp1="ed0"
if_isp2="ed1"
if_internal="ed2"
route1="( ed0 gw-isp1 )"
route2="( ed1 gw-isp2 )"
Hello
from ealier 6.0 there is problem with synproxy in pf filter:
this one 6.1-PRERELEASE #2: Wed Mar 15 02:02:37 MSK 2006
pf.conf just with single rule
pass in quick on lo0 proto tcp from any to any port 22 flags S/SA synproxy state
result
telnet 127.0.0.1 22
Trying 127.0.0.1...
Connected to
On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 05:31:18PM +0300, Alex wrote:
> What's to be added to take synproxy into working state?
Try adding 'set skip on lo0'. Filtering on loopback is weird and has
surprising side-effects with synproxy.
Daniel
___
freebsd-pf@freebsd.or
В ср, 23/11/2005 в 14:55 +0100, Max Laier пишет:
> On Wednesday 23 November 2005 14:42, Alex wrote:
> > In contrast, looks like synproxy is _not_ working in 6-stable from
> > November, 22nd.
> > The same ruleset for inbound traffic is working successfully on
> > 5.4-STABLE.
> > The workaround I've
On Wednesday 23 November 2005 14:42, Alex wrote:
> In contrast, looks like synproxy is _not_ working in 6-stable from
> November, 22nd.
> The same ruleset for inbound traffic is working successfully on
> 5.4-STABLE.
> The workaround I've done is a change 'synproxy' option to 'modulate'
> Any ideas
In contrast, looks like synproxy is _not_ working in 6-stable from
November, 22nd.
The same ruleset for inbound traffic is working successfully on
5.4-STABLE.
The workaround I've done is a change 'synproxy' option to 'modulate'
Any ideas and info?
--
Alex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
\o/
i have to try
Dave írta:
Hello,
Just a quick note, synproxy is working in 6.0. I had a ruleset that it
did not previously work in, i added synproxy to the inbound rules and
it now works.
Dave.
___
freebsd-pf@freebsd.org mailing list
http://
Hello,
Just a quick note, synproxy is working in 6.0. I had a ruleset that it did
not previously work in, i added synproxy to the inbound rules and it now
works.
Dave.
___
freebsd-pf@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/
38 matches
Mail list logo
