nat and dns

nat and dns

[Raphael Jacquot]

hi,
I have a setup that looks like :
  _____                                ____
[     ] 192.168.0.100                [    ]
[ DNS ]------------------------------[ FW ]----
[_____]                192.168.0.254 [____] (isp)

and I want the DNS to answer to queries from the outside
what's the proper way of doing this ?

Sincerely

Raphael

Re: nat and dns

[Nick Drage]

On Thu, Sep 23, 2004 at 11:00:33AM +0200, Raphael Jacquot wrote:
> hi,
> I have a setup that looks like :
>  _____                                ____
> [     ] 192.168.0.100                [    ]
> [ DNS ]------------------------------[ FW ]----
> [_____]                192.168.0.254 [____] (isp)
> 
> and I want the DNS to answer to queries from the outside
> what's the proper way of doing this ?

I'm presuming that you want to answer queries from everywhere, rather
than just from specific hosts, in which case:

iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING --destination $EXTERNAL_IP -p udp --dport
53 -j DNAT --to-destination 192.168.0.100

iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING --destination $EXTERNAL_IP -p tcp --dport
53 -j DNAT --to-destination 192.168.0.100

iptables -A FORWARD --destination 192.168.0.100 -p udp --dport 53 -j
ACCEPT

iptables -A FORWARD --destination 192.168.0.100 -p tcp --dport 53 -j
ACCEPT

iptables -A FORWARD -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT

I'd be interested to hear how you get on by the way, I'm not quite sure
that my iptables rulebases are keeping state on DNS requests correctly.

-- 
mors omnia vincit

Re: nat and dns

[Samuel Díaz García]

For DNS query only UDP is necesary, not TCP.

Regards,

Nick Drage writes:

> On Thu, Sep 23, 2004 at 11:00:33AM +0200, Raphael Jacquot wrote:
>> hi,
>> I have a setup that looks like :
>>  _____                                ____
>> [     ] 192.168.0.100                [    ]
>> [ DNS ]------------------------------[ FW ]----
>> [_____]                192.168.0.254 [____] (isp)
>>
>> and I want the DNS to answer to queries from the outside
>> what's the proper way of doing this ?
>
> I'm presuming that you want to answer queries from everywhere, rather
> than just from specific hosts, in which case:
>
> iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING --destination $EXTERNAL_IP -p udp --dport
> 53 -j DNAT --to-destination 192.168.0.100
>
> iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING --destination $EXTERNAL_IP -p tcp --dport
> 53 -j DNAT --to-destination 192.168.0.100
>
> iptables -A FORWARD --destination 192.168.0.100 -p udp --dport 53 -j
> ACCEPT
>
> iptables -A FORWARD --destination 192.168.0.100 -p tcp --dport 53 -j
> ACCEPT
>
> iptables -A FORWARD -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT
>
> I'd be interested to hear how you get on by the way, I'm not quite sure
> that my iptables rulebases are keeping state on DNS requests correctly.
>
> --
> mors omnia vincit
>



Samuel Díaz Garcí­a
Director Gerente
ArcosCom Wireless, S.L.L.

mailto:samueldg@arcoscom.com
http://www.arcoscom.com
móvil: 651 93 72 48
tlfn/fax: 956 70 13 15

Re: nat and dns

[Nick Drage]

On Thu, Sep 23, 2004 at 01:09:43PM +0200, Samuel Díaz García wrote:
> For DNS query only UDP is necesary, not TCP.

Heh, that's such a common misconception that I almost mentioned it in my
original email.  Most DNS queries take place over UDP, however if the
reply to the query is especially large then a new TCP connection is
opened between the client and server.  Also zone transfers take place
over TCP IIRC, it depends what kind of functionality the DNS server will
be providing.

-- 
mors omnia vincit

Re: nat and dns

[Samuel Díaz García]

Sorry, you've reason. But I answered that to simplify and thinking about an
internal DNS server that only have the intranet names in it and the external
queries are redirected throw external servers.

Sorry again.

Nick Drage writes:

> On Thu, Sep 23, 2004 at 01:09:43PM +0200, Samuel Díaz García wrote:
>> For DNS query only UDP is necesary, not TCP.
>
> Heh, that's such a common misconception that I almost mentioned it in my
> original email.  Most DNS queries take place over UDP, however if the
> reply to the query is especially large then a new TCP connection is
> opened between the client and server.  Also zone transfers take place
> over TCP IIRC, it depends what kind of functionality the DNS server will
> be providing.
>
> --
> mors omnia vincit
>



Samuel Díaz Garcí­a
Director Gerente
ArcosCom Wireless, S.L.L.

mailto:samueldg@arcoscom.com
http://www.arcoscom.com
móvil: 651 93 72 48
tlfn/fax: 956 70 13 15

RE: nat and dns

[Alexis]

Just to add some information to the correct one below.

Tcp queries are queries greater than 512 bytes. (normally). Microsoft uses
to query via tcp with short queries too, I didn’t found any doc or pattern
looking the queries to asume why m$ do this.

Zone transfers like Nick said, are all via tcp
 

-----Mensaje original-----
De: netfilter-bounces@lists.netfilter.org
[mailto:netfilter-bounces@lists.netfilter.org] En nombre de Nick Drage
Enviado el: Jueves, 23 de Septiembre de 2004 8:24
Para: netfilter@lists.netfilter.org
Asunto: Re: nat and dns

On Thu, Sep 23, 2004 at 01:09:43PM +0200, Samuel Díaz García wrote:
> For DNS query only UDP is necesary, not TCP.

Heh, that's such a common misconception that I almost mentioned it in my
original email.  Most DNS queries take place over UDP, however if the reply
to the query is especially large then a new TCP connection is opened between
the client and server.  Also zone transfers take place over TCP IIRC, it
depends what kind of functionality the DNS server will be providing.

--
mors omnia vincit

Re: nat and dns

[Jason Opperisano]

On Thu, 2004-09-23 at 07:23, Nick Drage wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 23, 2004 at 01:09:43PM +0200, Samuel Díaz García wrote:
> > For DNS query only UDP is necesary, not TCP.
> 
> Heh, that's such a common misconception that I almost mentioned it in my
> original email.  

i surprised you didn't...as it comes up here every time DNS is
mentioned.  and you're 100% right about it being a misconception.

> Most DNS queries take place over UDP, however if the
> reply to the query is especially large then a new TCP connection is
> opened between the client and server.

find me a response to a client resolver request that doesn't fit in a
single UDP packet, and i'll stop seeing red every time i see someone
recommend allowing TCP 53 from any IP to their DNS server (*).

>   Also zone transfers take place
> over TCP IIRC, it depends what kind of functionality the DNS server will
> be providing.

TCP 53 is for zone transfers.  there is no reason to allow TCP from any
IP's other then your slave servers.  i also recommend ACL-ing zone
tranfers in your DNS server configuration as well.

(*) the biggest response i've come across that i can recall is an MX
record lookup for earthlink.net, which is about 540 bytes on the wire
and still "fits" in a single UDP packet.  people that manage DNS servers
that respond with messages of this size are aware that many people that
they want receiving these answers will not allow TCP 53 in through their
firewall and act accordingly.

-j

-- 
Jason Opperisano <opie@817west.com>

Re: nat and dns

[Aleksandar Milivojevic]

Jason Opperisano wrote:
> find me a response to a client resolver request that doesn't fit in a
> single UDP packet, and i'll stop seeing red every time i see someone
> recommend allowing TCP 53 from any IP to their DNS server (*).

Theoretically (since I don't know of any such implementation), it is 
perfectly legal to have resolver library that first tries TCP, and than 
UDP :-P

Of course, such approach would be waste of network resources (sending 
one UDP datagram one way, and another the other way is usually at least 
as fast as only establishihg new TCP connection without sending any data 
through it).

Anyhow, I don't see why are you going red when you see TCP port 53 open? 
  If it is possible for random internet site to fetch zone from DNS 
server, it is misconfiguration of DNS server, not of the firewall.  OSI 
layers and all that stuff, you know ;-).  If your DNS server does not 
allow you to restrict who can do zone transfers, that you should 
seriously consider switching to different DNS server that does.  It is 
the same as if you were to restrict one directory on HTTP server to only 
certain range of IP addresses, and than blame it on firewall when you 
misconfigure HTTP server.

-- 
Aleksandar Milivojevic <amilivojevic@pbl.ca>    Pollard Banknote Limited
Systems Administrator                           1499 Buffalo Place
Tel: (204) 474-2323 ext 276                     Winnipeg, MB  R3T 1L7

Re: nat and dns

[Jason Opperisano]

On Thu, 2004-09-23 at 10:34, Aleksandar Milivojevic wrote:
> Theoretically (since I don't know of any such implementation), it is 
> perfectly legal to have resolver library that first tries TCP, and than 
> UDP :-P
> 
> Of course, such approach would be waste of network resources (sending 
> one UDP datagram one way, and another the other way is usually at least 
> as fast as only establishihg new TCP connection without sending any data 
> through it).
> 
> Anyhow, I don't see why are you going red when you see TCP port 53 open? 
>   If it is possible for random internet site to fetch zone from DNS 
> server, it is misconfiguration of DNS server, not of the firewall.  OSI 
> layers and all that stuff, you know ;-).  

it comes from the days of BIND offering up remote root exploits more
often that i care to remember.  not allowing TCP 53 through the firewall
allowed one to get a least a couple of winks over the course of a night.

> If your DNS server does not 
> allow you to restrict who can do zone transfers, that you should 
> seriously consider switching to different DNS server that does.  

just adding layers to the onion.

-j

-- 
Jason Opperisano <opie@817west.com>

Re: nat and dns

[Aleksandar Milivojevic]

Jason Opperisano wrote:
> it comes from the days of BIND offering up remote root exploits more
> often that i care to remember.  not allowing TCP 53 through the firewall
> allowed one to get a least a couple of winks over the course of a night.

Well, those days are hopefully over.  Modern BIND is just as secure as 
any other service (hm, thinking about it, this isn't much of an argument 
;-) ).  Plus, it runs as unpriviledged user in chrooted jail just fine 
(this one is an argument).

> just adding layers to the onion.

Let me guess, you named your firewall shrek.817west.com?

-- 
Aleksandar Milivojevic <amilivojevic@pbl.ca>    Pollard Banknote Limited
Systems Administrator                           1499 Buffalo Place
Tel: (204) 474-2323 ext 276                     Winnipeg, MB  R3T 1L7

Re: nat and dns

[Jozsef Kadlecsik]

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004, Jason Opperisano wrote:

> > Most DNS queries take place over UDP, however if the
> > reply to the query is especially large then a new TCP connection is
> > opened between the client and server.
>
> find me a response to a client resolver request that doesn't fit in a
> single UDP packet, and i'll stop seeing red every time i see someone
> recommend allowing TCP 53 from any IP to their DNS server (*).

AIX uses just TCP, even for a plain query.

Best regards,
Jozsef
-
E-mail  : kadlec@blackhole.kfki.hu, kadlec@sunserv.kfki.hu
PGP key : http://www.kfki.hu/~kadlec/pgp_public_key.txt
Address : KFKI Research Institute for Particle and Nuclear Physics
          H-1525 Budapest 114, POB. 49, Hungary

RE: nat and dns

[Alexis]

Microsoft uses tcp for queries too.
 

-----Mensaje original-----
De: netfilter-bounces@lists.netfilter.org
[mailto:netfilter-bounces@lists.netfilter.org] En nombre de Samuel Díaz
García
Enviado el: Jueves, 23 de Septiembre de 2004 8:10
Para: Netfilter Mailing List
Asunto: Re: nat and dns

For DNS query only UDP is necesary, not TCP. 

Regards, 

Nick Drage writes: 

> On Thu, Sep 23, 2004 at 11:00:33AM +0200, Raphael Jacquot wrote:
>> hi,
>> I have a setup that looks like :
>>  _____                                ____
>> [     ] 192.168.0.100                [    ]
>> [ DNS ]------------------------------[ FW ]----
>> [_____]                192.168.0.254 [____] (isp) 
>> 
>> and I want the DNS to answer to queries from the outside what's the 
>> proper way of doing this ?
> 
> I'm presuming that you want to answer queries from everywhere, rather 
> than just from specific hosts, in which case:
> 
> iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING --destination $EXTERNAL_IP -p udp 
> --dport
> 53 -j DNAT --to-destination 192.168.0.100
> 
> iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING --destination $EXTERNAL_IP -p tcp 
> --dport
> 53 -j DNAT --to-destination 192.168.0.100
> 
> iptables -A FORWARD --destination 192.168.0.100 -p udp --dport 53 -j 
> ACCEPT
> 
> iptables -A FORWARD --destination 192.168.0.100 -p tcp --dport 53 -j 
> ACCEPT
> 
> iptables -A FORWARD -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT
> 
> I'd be interested to hear how you get on by the way, I'm not quite 
> sure that my iptables rulebases are keeping state on DNS requests
correctly.
> 
> --
> mors omnia vincit
> 
 


Samuel Díaz Garcí­a
Director Gerente
ArcosCom Wireless, S.L.L. 

mailto:samueldg@arcoscom.com
http://www.arcoscom.com
móvil: 651 93 72 48
tlfn/fax: 956 70 13 15 

Re: nat and dns

[Aleksandar Milivojevic]

Samuel Díaz García wrote:
> For DNS query only UDP is necesary, not TCP.

Wrong.  If reply does not fit into single UDP datagram, client will 
reissue the query over TCP.

-- 
Aleksandar Milivojevic <amilivojevic@pbl.ca>    Pollard Banknote Limited
Systems Administrator                           1499 Buffalo Place
Tel: (204) 474-2323 ext 276                     Winnipeg, MB  R3T 1L7

Re: nat and dns

[Raphael Jacquot]

Nick Drage wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 23, 2004 at 11:00:33AM +0200, Raphael Jacquot wrote:
> 
>>hi,
>>I have a setup that looks like :
>> _____                                ____
>>[     ] 192.168.0.100                [    ]
>>[ DNS ]------------------------------[ FW ]----
>>[_____]                192.168.0.254 [____] (isp)
>>
>>and I want the DNS to answer to queries from the outside
>>what's the proper way of doing this ?
> 
> 
> I'm presuming that you want to answer queries from everywhere, rather
> than just from specific hosts, in which case:
> 
> iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING --destination $EXTERNAL_IP -p udp --dport
> 53 -j DNAT --to-destination 192.168.0.100
> 
> iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING --destination $EXTERNAL_IP -p tcp --dport
> 53 -j DNAT --to-destination 192.168.0.100
> 
> iptables -A FORWARD --destination 192.168.0.100 -p udp --dport 53 -j
> ACCEPT
> 
> iptables -A FORWARD --destination 192.168.0.100 -p tcp --dport 53 -j
> ACCEPT
> 
> iptables -A FORWARD -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT
> 
> I'd be interested to hear how you get on by the way, I'm not quite sure
> that my iptables rulebases are keeping state on DNS requests correctly.
> 

seems to work well, thanks...

Re: nat and dns

[Aleksandar Milivojevic]

Raphael Jacquot wrote:
> hi,
> I have a setup that looks like :
>  _____                                ____
> [     ] 192.168.0.100                [    ]
> [ DNS ]------------------------------[ FW ]----
> [_____]                192.168.0.254 [____] (isp)
> 
> and I want the DNS to answer to queries from the outside
> what's the proper way of doing this ?

Use DNAT target.  In short what you need to do is:

   iptables -A FORWARD -m state --state NEW -j ACCEPT
   iptables -A FORWARD -p icmp -m state --state RELATED -j ACCEPT
   iptables -A FORWARD -i ext_if -o int_if -d 192.168.0.100 \
      -p udp --port 53 -m state --state NEW -j ACCEPT
   iptables -A FORWARD -i ext_if -o int_if -d 192.168.0.100 \
      -p tcp --port 53 -m state --state NEW -j ACCEPT

   iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -i ext_if -d ext_ip \
      -p udp --port 53 -j DNAT --to-address 192.168.0.100
   iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -i ext_if -d ext_ip \
      -p tcp --port 53 -j DNAT --to-address 192.168.0.100



-- 
Aleksandar Milivojevic <amilivojevic@pbl.ca>    Pollard Banknote Limited
Systems Administrator                           1499 Buffalo Place
Tel: (204) 474-2323 ext 276                     Winnipeg, MB  R3T 1L7

Re: nat and dns

[Dimitar Katerinski]

Sorry, a little bit off topic, but I allways go red about such kind of crappy rules:

> Use DNAT target.  In short what you need to do is:
> 
>    iptables -A FORWARD -m state --state NEW -j ACCEPT

Do you know what you just did? You've just allowed any kind of
connections, protocols to any port and from/to any destionation. Cute,
isn't it? Remember, --state NEW, never ever have meant, and I doubt
it'll ever mean that this is an tcp connection with only SYN bit set. It
could be everyting, ACK,URG,PSH etc. So guess what, you just open a wide
hole in your so called "firewall" machine. You better use --tpc-flags or
--syn alias for such purposes. --state NEW can be used for redundant
firewalling for example, but for me it has no use.


Regards,
Dimitar

P.S. Why I go red? Because there're thousands of people who use it, and
they learned it from someone like you.
-- 
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing."
                                                  --Edmund Burke. 

Re: nat and dns

[Jason Opperisano]

On Thu, 2004-09-23 at 18:02, Dimitar Katerinski wrote:
> Sorry, a little bit off topic, but I allways go red about such kind of crappy rules:
> 
> > Use DNAT target.  In short what you need to do is:
> > 
> >    iptables -A FORWARD -m state --state NEW -j ACCEPT
> 
> Do you know what you just did? You've just allowed any kind of
> connections, protocols to any port and from/to any destionation. Cute,
> isn't it? Remember, --state NEW, never ever have meant, and I doubt
> it'll ever mean that this is an tcp connection with only SYN bit set. It
> could be everyting, ACK,URG,PSH etc. So guess what, you just open a wide
> hole in your so called "firewall" machine. You better use --tpc-flags or
> --syn alias for such purposes. --state NEW can be used for redundant
> firewalling for example, but for me it has no use.

if you're going to go on a tirade about the problem with that rule, at
least point out the actual problem:  it doesn't specify the inbound
interface and/or source network(s):

  iptables -A FORWARD -i $INTERNAL_IF -m state --state NEW -j ACCEPT  

modifying it to use "-p tcp --syn" still allows all TCP traffic through
the FORWARD chain in both directions.

-j

-- 
Jason Opperisano <opie@817west.com>

Re: nat and dns

[Aleksandar Milivojevic]

Quoting Dimitar Katerinski <train@bofh.bg>
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 01:02:11

> Sorry, a little bit off topic, but I allways go red about such kind of crappy
> rules:
> 
> > Use DNAT target.  In short what you need to do is:
> > 
> >    iptables -A FORWARD -m state --state NEW -j ACCEPT
> 
> Do you know what you just did? You've just allowed any kind of
> connections, protocols to any port and from/to any destionation. Cute,
> isn't it?

The above was an obvious typo that I made.  It should have read ESTABLISHED, not
NEW, of course.  It kinda suprised me that it took so long before anybody noticed.

As for using only --state NEW in my other rules vs specifying tcp flags, there
were some discussions before on the list about it.  For most part it will just
prevent nmap and similar programs to do some types of tests used to remotely
determine OS type.  Personally, I do use tcp-flags option in combination with
--state NEW.  And what I sometimes type when giving examples (mostly not, becase
of pure laziness on my part) is that they are examples and that reader should
add additional flags to make it more tight.

> P.S. Why I go red? Because there're thousands of people who use it, and
> they learned it from someone like you.

Maybe yes, maybe no.  The bottom line is that probability of somebody getting
burned by not using tcp-flags (or simply syn) option is quite low.  But if
that's going to make you so much happier person, I can start typing mile long
examples instead of giving hints.  I could bet that out of those thousands,
there will be at least 99% that will fail to realize that 2.6 series of kernels
is extremely trigger happy to load ipv6 module (which will automatically assign
link local IPv6 addresses to all Ethernet interfaces), and that is much more
serious problem than omiting --syn or whatever...

-- 
Aleksandar Milivojevic <amilivojevic@pbl.ca>    Pollard Banknote Limited
Systems Administrator                           1499 Buffalo Place
Tel: (204) 474-2323 ext 276                     Winnipeg, MB  R3T 1L7

Re: nat and dns

[Jason Opperisano]

On Thu, 2004-09-23 at 21:56, Aleksandar Milivojevic wrote:
> Quoting Dimitar Katerinski <train@bofh.bg>
> Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 01:02:11
> 
> > Sorry, a little bit off topic, but I allways go red about such kind of crappy
> > rules:
> > 
> > > Use DNAT target.  In short what you need to do is:
> > > 
> > >    iptables -A FORWARD -m state --state NEW -j ACCEPT
> > 
> > Do you know what you just did? You've just allowed any kind of
> > connections, protocols to any port and from/to any destionation. Cute,
> > isn't it?
> 
> The above was an obvious typo that I made.  It should have read ESTABLISHED, not
> NEW, of course.  It kinda suprised me that it took so long before anybody noticed.

i regret not pointing out in my response that it was obvious to me that
this was a typo, and not any reflection on the poster in any way, shape,
or form.

> Maybe yes, maybe no.  The bottom line is that probability of somebody getting
> burned by not using tcp-flags (or simply syn) option is quite low.  But if
> that's going to make you so much happier person, I can start typing mile long
> examples instead of giving hints. 

precisely.  the rules that get posted here are to illustrate the point,
not our recommendations of what makes a perfect firewall.

i know as well as anyone that the easiest path is to lurk and wait for
typo to pounce upon.

-j

-- 
Jason Opperisano <opie@817west.com>

NAT and DNS

[Mauricio Gouvea]

Hi, is it possible to put a DNS server behind a firewall (iptables) doing
NAT ? If I set the FORWARD rules for a valid ip alias 0n my firewall and the
POSTROUTING for an inside IP address this DNS SErver will answer to external
world with no problems ??? I´ve never tested this.

Thanks,

Mau

Re: NAT and DNS

[Antony Stone]

On Wednesday 11 September 2002 1:10 pm, Mauricio Gouvea wrote:

> Hi, is it possible to put a DNS server behind a firewall (iptables) doing
> NAT ?

Yes.

> If I set the FORWARD rules for a valid ip alias 0n my firewall and
> the POSTROUTING for an inside IP address this DNS SErver will answer to
> external world with no problems ???

Not quite.   You need the DNAT rule in the PREROUTING chain, and the rule 
inthe FORWARD rule has to be for the internal (ie private) address, because 
by the time the packets get to the FORWARD chain, they've already been 
DNATted.

> I´ve never tested this.

Remember that DNS uses both UDP and TCP (both on port 53), remember also that 
depending on what sort of DNS server it is (forwarding, authoritative, 
primary, secondary, caching...) you may want to allow outgoing requests from 
it as well as incoming ones.

Antony.

-- 

How I want a drink, alcoholic of course, after the heavy chapters
involving quantum mechanics.

 - 3.14159265358979