Possible bug: pf ignores "reply-to" in block-rules
Kristian Kræmmer Nielsen
jkkn at jkkn.dk
Sat Jan 30 04:11:30 UTC 2010
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
More information about the freebsd-pf
mailing list