Unable to block ICMP

Unable to block ICMP

[Ronald]

Check this thread (posted by me):

http://forums.fedoraforum.org/forum/showthread.php?t=152539

Could anyone help me here with the problem please ?

                                                                         
                                 Ronald

Re: Unable to block ICMP

[Thomas d'Otreppe]

Ronald,

use "iptables -A INPUT -p icmp -j DROP" instead of "iptables -A OUTPUT
-p icmp -j DROP"

Best regards,

Thomas

2007/4/15, Ronald <ronald645@gmail.com>:
> Check this thread (posted by me):
>
> http://forums.fedoraforum.org/forum/showthread.php?t=152539
>
> Could anyone help me here with the problem please ?
>
>
>                                  Ronald
>
>

Re: Unable to block ICMP

[Thomas d'Otreppe]

Ronald,

the subject of your mail is "Unable to block ICMP", so I just told you
how to block the ICMP (by looking at the rules you posted on the link
you gave).

Best regards,

Thomas

PS: Please use "answer to All", so that everybody get the answer and
can follow this thread

2007/4/15, Ronald <ronald645@gmail.com>:
> Thomas d'Otreppe schreef:
> > Ronald,
> >
> > use "iptables -A INPUT -p icmp -j DROP" instead of "iptables -A OUTPUT
> > -p icmp -j DROP"
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Thomas
> >
> > 2007/4/15, Ronald <ronald645@gmail.com>:
> >> Check this thread (posted by me):
> >>
> >> http://forums.fedoraforum.org/forum/showthread.php?t=152539
> >>
> >> Could anyone help me here with the problem please ?
> >>
> >>
> >>                                  Ronald
> >>
> >>
> >
> That didn't work either. pcflank.com still sees the ports as closed. Any
> more sugeestions?
>

Re: Unable to block ICMP

[Ronald]

Thomas d'Otreppe schreef:
> Ronald,
>
> the subject of your mail is "Unable to block ICMP", so I just told you
> how to block the ICMP (by looking at the rules you posted on the link
> you gave).
>
> Best regards,
>
> Thomas
>
> PS: Please use "answer to All", so that everybody get the answer and
> can follow this thread
>
> 2007/4/15, Ronald <ronald645@gmail.com>:
>> Thomas d'Otreppe schreef:
>> > Ronald,
>> >
>> > use "iptables -A INPUT -p icmp -j DROP" instead of "iptables -A OUTPUT
>> > -p icmp -j DROP"
>> >
>> > Best regards,
>> >
>> > Thomas
>> >
>> > 2007/4/15, Ronald <ronald645@gmail.com>:
>> >> Check this thread (posted by me):
>> >>
>> >> http://forums.fedoraforum.org/forum/showthread.php?t=152539
>> >>
>> >> Could anyone help me here with the problem please ?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>                                  Ronald
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> That didn't work either. pcflank.com still sees the ports as closed. Any
>> more sugeestions?
>>
>
Well, what I actually wanted (which I probably explained wrong) is that 
my ports that are not in use (closed) are being invisible (no ICMP 
echo). That better?

RE: Unable to block ICMP

[Rob Sterenborg]

> Well, what I actually wanted (which I probably explained
> wrong) is that my ports that are not in use (closed) are
> being invisible (no ICMP echo). That better?

On the forum you are using this ruleset:

iptables -P INPUT ACCEPT
iptables -P FORWARD DROP
iptables -P OUTPUT ACCEPT
iptables -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 631 -j DROP
iptables -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 445 -j DROP
iptables -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 139 -j DROP
iptables -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 6000 -j DROP
iptables -A INPUT -p icmp -j DROP
iptables -A OUTPUT -p icmp -j DROP

Personally, I wouldn't want to do this. Why don't you DROP everything by
default and open up what you need, instead of ACCEPTing everything but
trying to DROP some ports/icmp?

Such ruleset would look like this:

$ipt -P INPUT DROP
[..ACCEPT rules here..]

Or like this:

[$ipt -P INPUT ACCEPT]
[..ACCEPT rules here..]
$ipt -A INPUT -j <DROP|REJECT [reject-with ...]>

IMHO that would be easier: for my IP, the website you mentioned shows
"steathed" (except for ports that I know are open) for the ports that
were scanned.


Grts,
Rob

Re: Unable to block ICMP

[Dean Anderson]

On Sun, 15 Apr 2007, Ronald wrote:

> Well, what I actually wanted (which I probably explained wrong) is that 
> my ports that are not in use (closed) are being invisible (no ICMP 
> echo). That better?

ICMP echo is not a per-port operation.  I don't know what the site you
quote means by 'closed'.  Also, blocking all ICMP is never a really good
idea: (recently updated)

http://www.av8.net/ICMPTypes.txt

I agree with the other posters': that you should block TCP and UDP
connections to all ports by default, and open only those that you trust
are exposable to the world, or better, just to whomever you have to
expose them to.

I suggest searching for instructions on how to do linux firewalls, and
following them, rather than trying to roll your own rules by trial and
error.

		--Dean

-- 
Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000   

Re: Unable to block ICMP

[Ronald]

Dean Anderson schreef:
> On Sun, 15 Apr 2007, Ronald wrote:
>
>   
>> Well, what I actually wanted (which I probably explained wrong) is that 
>> my ports that are not in use (closed) are being invisible (no ICMP 
>> echo). That better?
>>     
>
> ICMP echo is not a per-port operation.  I don't know what the site you
> quote means by 'closed'.  Also, blocking all ICMP is never a really good
> idea: (recently updated)
>
> http://www.av8.net/ICMPTypes.txt
>
> I agree with the other posters': that you should block TCP and UDP
> connections to all ports by default, and open only those that you trust
> are exposable to the world, or better, just to whomever you have to
> expose them to.
>
> I suggest searching for instructions on how to do linux firewalls, and
> following them, rather than trying to roll your own rules by trial and
> error.
>
> 		--Dean
>
>   
That is correctly my setup now, but some applications like skype require 
to have everything opened above 1024.
Furthermore, this setup would be really easy. I only block what I don't 
want and allow everything else, closed ports are being shown as stealth.
Once an application is started it will open a port and I don't have to 
reconfigure my firewall. I have this in Windows, like this (with Comodo):

- Block incoming traffic, with destination port 135,445,etc etc
- Block outgoing icmp traffic
- Allow all (the rest)

This is the most easy way, all applications just work without 
reconfiguring the firewall. And closed ports are stealth. But since you 
guys say so, I'll keep it this way (Drop all accept some)

                                                                         
                                                            Thanks

Re: Unable to block ICMP

[Marc Haber]

On Sun, Apr 15, 2007 at 07:10:25PM +0200, Ronald wrote:
> Well, what I actually wanted (which I probably explained wrong) is that 
> my ports that are not in use (closed) are being invisible (no ICMP 
> echo). That better?

Bad idea. All you're going to achive is that everybody knows "there is
something that is frantically trying to be invisible", which is kind
of a beacon instead of "blending into the crowd".

If you want to be invisible, pull your network cable. As soon as you
talk to the outside, you're going to be visible.

Greetings
Marc

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Haber         | "I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header
Mannheim, Germany  |  lose things."    Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 621 72739834
Nordisch by Nature |  How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 3221 2323190

Re: Unable to block ICMP

[Cedric Blancher]

Le mardi 17 avril 2007 à 11:46 +0200, Marc Haber a écrit :
> Bad idea. All you're going to achive is that everybody knows "there is
> something that is frantically trying to be invisible", which is kind
> of a beacon instead of "blending into the crowd".

I agree. Moreover, a non-existent host is signaled by ICMP errors in
normal operation.

Say your packet reaches the router attached to network containing target
IP address and there's no host on that very IP address. Then router will
issue an ARP request and won't get any answer. In this case, it should
send back a Host Unreachable ICMP message.

It's a very common mistake around to think that probing non existing
hosts don't generate any answer...


-- 
http://sid.rstack.org/
PGP KeyID: 157E98EE FingerPrint: FA62226DA9E72FA8AECAA240008B480E157E98EE
>> Hi! I'm your friendly neighbourhood signature virus.
>> Copy me to your signature file and help me spread!

Re: Unable to block ICMP

[Michael Hissler]

Ronald wrote:
> Check this thread (posted by me):
> 
> http://forums.fedoraforum.org/forum/showthread.php?t=152539
> 
> Could anyone help me here with the problem please ?
> 
>                                                                        
>                                 Ronald

Hi Ronald,

I don't know why your ports are 'closed' instead of 'stealthed', but it
has nothing to do with ICMP. ICMP doesn't use ports, so it's impossible
to send a ping to a port, especially a TCP or UDP port as those are
completly different protocols.

Are you using the 'Stealth Test'? This test sends TCP and UDP packets to
your IP, but no ICMP packets. There's a test called 'TCP ping packet',
but this has nothing to do with ICMP echo request, so dropping ICMP will
not solve your problem.

BTW: Dropping *all* incoming ICMP packets is a bad idea. You should
ACCEPT ICMP type 3 (destination unreachable), type 11 (time exceeded)
and perhaps type 12 (parameter problem), as those ICMP packets indicate
transmission errors you (your applications) probably want to know about.

I just tried the 'Stealth Test' on pcflank.com and the result is
'stealthed' for all tests, but the following could be the interesting part:

"We have sent following packets to TCP:1 port of your machine:"

If my interpretation is correct, it means that the packets are sent to
port 1/tcp (and the UDP packet to port 1/udp).

Add the following line to your rules:

iptables -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 1 -j DROP

Then, the test should result in 'stealthed' for all TCP tests, but
'closed' for the UDP test.


michael

Re: Unable to block ICMP

[Ronald]

Michael Hissler schreef:
> Ronald wrote:
>   
>> Check this thread (posted by me):
>>
>> http://forums.fedoraforum.org/forum/showthread.php?t=152539
>>
>> Could anyone help me here with the problem please ?
>>
>>                                                                        
>>                                 Ronald
>>     
>
> Hi Ronald,
>
> I don't know why your ports are 'closed' instead of 'stealthed', but it
> has nothing to do with ICMP. ICMP doesn't use ports, so it's impossible
> to send a ping to a port, especially a TCP or UDP port as those are
> completly different protocols.
>
> Are you using the 'Stealth Test'? This test sends TCP and UDP packets to
> your IP, but no ICMP packets. There's a test called 'TCP ping packet',
> but this has nothing to do with ICMP echo request, so dropping ICMP will
> not solve your problem.
>
> BTW: Dropping *all* incoming ICMP packets is a bad idea. You should
> ACCEPT ICMP type 3 (destination unreachable), type 11 (time exceeded)
> and perhaps type 12 (parameter problem), as those ICMP packets indicate
> transmission errors you (your applications) probably want to know about.
>
> I just tried the 'Stealth Test' on pcflank.com and the result is
> 'stealthed' for all tests, but the following could be the interesting part:
>
> "We have sent following packets to TCP:1 port of your machine:"
>
> If my interpretation is correct, it means that the packets are sent to
> port 1/tcp (and the UDP packet to port 1/udp).
>
> Add the following line to your rules:
>
> iptables -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 1 -j DROP
>
> Then, the test should result in 'stealthed' for all TCP tests, but
> 'closed' for the UDP test.
>
>
> michael
>
>
>   
That is weird, if you block ICMP outgoing in comodo, all the closed 
ports are shown as stealthed. This is really confusing ...

Re: Unable to block ICMP

[Michael Hissler]

Ronald wrote:

[...]

> That is weird, if you block ICMP outgoing in comodo, all the closed
> ports are shown as stealthed. This is really confusing ...

What is comodo?

Which scan test are you using? If it's a UDP scan this is not weird. If
a closed port (i.e. a port no service is listening on) is contacted, an
ICMP port unreachable message is sent back. By blocking this ICMP
message (or blocking all outgoing ICMP traffic), you get the same result
as if you blocked the incoming packet: the sender doesn't get a response
and so the port is 'stealthed'.
If it's a TCP scan, the kernel sends back a TCP Reset. In this case
blocking ICMP should have no effect (in this case: yes, it's weird).


BTW: If you block traffic to ports services are listening on, but accept
traffic to closed ports, someone who scans your IP knows:

1. You are there. He gets ICMP port unreachable messages or TCP Reset
for the closed but unblocked (not 'stealthed') ports.
2. He knows which ports you are running services on (-> the ports he
doesn't get the ICMP messages or TCP Reset).

This may not be what you want.


You wrote that skype requires to have everything open above port 1024.
This can't be true!
Skype works perfectly if you accept all outgoing traffic and

a) configure skype to use a certain port and accept incoming traffic to
this port,

or (better)

b) drop *all* incoming traffic and use connection tracking. This lets
pass all incoming packets belonging to a connection initialized by your
computer:
iptables -A INPUT -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT
(you can leave out the ',RELATED' but then you'll run into trouble with
e.g. FTP and ICMP error messages)



michael

Re: Unable to block ICMP

[Ronald]

Michael Hissler schreef:
> Ronald wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>   
>> That is weird, if you block ICMP outgoing in comodo, all the closed
>> ports are shown as stealthed. This is really confusing ...
>>     
>
> What is comodo?
>
> Which scan test are you using? If it's a UDP scan this is not weird. If
> a closed port (i.e. a port no service is listening on) is contacted, an
> ICMP port unreachable message is sent back. By blocking this ICMP
> message (or blocking all outgoing ICMP traffic), you get the same result
> as if you blocked the incoming packet: the sender doesn't get a response
> and so the port is 'stealthed'.
> If it's a TCP scan, the kernel sends back a TCP Reset. In this case
> blocking ICMP should have no effect (in this case: yes, it's weird).
>
>
> BTW: If you block traffic to ports services are listening on, but accept
> traffic to closed ports, someone who scans your IP knows:
>
> 1. You are there. He gets ICMP port unreachable messages or TCP Reset
> for the closed but unblocked (not 'stealthed') ports.
> 2. He knows which ports you are running services on (-> the ports he
> doesn't get the ICMP messages or TCP Reset).
>
> This may not be what you want.
>
>
> You wrote that skype requires to have everything open above port 1024.
> This can't be true!
> Skype works perfectly if you accept all outgoing traffic and
>
> a) configure skype to use a certain port and accept incoming traffic to
> this port,
>
> or (better)
>
> b) drop *all* incoming traffic and use connection tracking. This lets
> pass all incoming packets belonging to a connection initialized by your
> computer:
> iptables -A INPUT -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT
> (you can leave out the ',RELATED' but then you'll run into trouble with
> e.g. FTP and ICMP error messages)
>
>
>
> michael
>
>
>
>
>
>
>   
THANKS! That:

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


Was just what I was looking for :D . I recompiled my kernel with support 
for it and it works amazing :D .
Way to go :)

                                                                         
                                                Ronald