Possible bug: pf ignores "reply-to" in block-rules

[Peter Maxwell]

Hi Kristian,

This is quite late, so if my reply doesn't make and sense please
ignore it ;-)   Also, I'm not really answering your question, just
suggesting an alternative.

Instead of using reply-to, can the upstream device that is sending
packets to the gif0 tunnel - or even pf if it works in this scenario -
NAT the source address of incoming packets to a rfc1918 subnet?  That
way all you need to do is add an appropriate entry to your routing
table and you don't have to worry about trying to route to overlapping
address space.

Although I haven't tried it, FreeBSD 8.0 can use multiple routing
tables but have no idea whether this would help.

I know it comes down to personal taste but can I ask why you are using
"block return" in the first place?  There are a few possible
disadvantages: if the packet source address is spoofed your packet
filter will be sending tcp rst/icmp packets back to the wrong IP, and
you are also doubling the resources taken for dealing with what is
essentially spurious traffic.  It's not a big deal normally but if
someone attempts some form of denial of service, it won't help either.

Regards,

Peter





On 30 January 2010 04:11, Kristian Kræmmer Nielsen <jkkn at jkkn.dk> wrote:
> Hey,
>
> I am experiencing an issue using reply-to on block rules.
>
> I am a "nice" firewall administrator and always uses "block return" rules,
> thereby pf sends nice reset packets back to clients if they attempt to
> connect to a port that pf is setup to block.
>
> My setup is using a gif0 tunnel to tunnel specific traffic from another
> public IP-address to the server. Since it is important that packages are
> then to be routed back the same way and not using the default-route, I use
> "pass in reply-to gif0"-rules and this worked perfectly for all incoming
> traffic.
>
> But, on my "block return in gif0 reply-to gif0" - pf seem to simply ignore
> the reply-to parameter and instead decides to send the packs back using the
> default route.
>
> I see the packages go out on the wrong interface, in my case my ethernet
> interface (em0), that is the default route for the server.
>
> Could someone check to see if pf respects "reply-to" when sending reset
> packages (block return)?
>
> Or if that is not the case explain to me what "reply-to" is suppose to do on
> "block"-rules?
>
> Best regards,
> Kristian Kræmmer Nielsen,
> Odense, Denmark
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-pf at freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-pf
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-pf-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
>