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