All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Nik Trevallyn-Jones <nik@exmosys.com>
To: netfilter@lists.netfilter.org
Subject: Re: Automatic forwarding to own interfaces
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 23:47:53 +1000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <03092323475304.01185@slinky.exmosys.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20030923131404.11418.97793.Mailman@netfilter-sponsored-by.noris.net>

On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 23:14, you wrote:
> Subject: Re: Automatic forwarding to own interfaces
>
> >That's a "normal" Linux behaviour. Linux answers packets destined to any
> >of its own IPs own any interface, as long as your INPUT filtering rules
> >allows it. You can set something like :
> >
> >	iptables -A INPUT -d 192.168.1.5 -i ! eth1 -j DROP
> >	iptables -A OUTPUT -s 192.168.1.5 -o ! eth1 -j DROP
>
> Hmm... I was afraid this was the case.
>
> So in the common small scale setup with one box acting as router, firewall
> and internal web and smtp server, this is an absolute must. Or your
> "internal" web and smtp services will in fact be open to anyone.

Well, as far as I can tell, it's not *quite* that bad. For anyone to get this 
behaviour, they would have to define your external address as their gateway, 
and then address their packets correctly to your internal interface 
address(es). I don't know enough about IP routing to know if they could do 
this assuming that the machine they are sending from probably already has a 
gateway configured to enable their packet to get *out* from their network in 
the first place.

> So what is the point in configuring daemons to listen only on specific
> addresses?

I use this to implement virtual servers.

> This is probably a surprise to some, as it is to me. Quite a few firewall
> packages and setups miss this point.

It is a big surprise to me. The firewall setup that I originally copied, and 
have happily enhanced over time already had rules to DROP packets that 
didn't belong on a particular interface, with comments such as "stuffed 
routing", "spoofed address", etc, so I already had this protection, although 
I was unaware of the issue.

Cheers!
Nik


       reply	other threads:[~2003-09-23 13:47 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <20030923131404.11418.97793.Mailman@netfilter-sponsored-by.noris.net>
2003-09-23 13:47 ` Nik Trevallyn-Jones [this message]
2003-09-23  6:23 Automatic forwarding to own interfaces Simon Lodal
2003-09-23  9:25 ` Martin Josefsson
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2003-09-23  5:14 Simon Lodal
2003-09-23  5:51 ` Cedric Blancher

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=03092323475304.01185@slinky.exmosys.com \
    --to=nik@exmosys.com \
    --cc=netfilter@lists.netfilter.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.