From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "terry l. ridder" <artisticforge@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: iptables leaking blocked ip addresses.
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 15:23:15 -0500
Message-ID: <49bf7d705062013236f4e105a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <49bf7d7050620083448c1dee9@mail.gmail.com>
	<200506201055.25861.rob0@gmx.co.uk>
	<49bf7d7050620091748a270fc@mail.gmail.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.62.0506202125290.28510@mercury.sdinet.de>
Reply-To: "terry l. ridder" <artisticforge@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <netfilter-bounces@lists.netfilter.org>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0506202125290.28510@mercury.sdinet.de>
Content-Disposition: inline
List-Id: <netfilter.vger.kernel.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.netfilter.org/mailman/listinfo/netfilter>,
	<mailto:netfilter-request@lists.netfilter.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: </pipermail/netfilter>
List-Post: <mailto:netfilter@lists.netfilter.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netfilter-request@lists.netfilter.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.netfilter.org/mailman/listinfo/netfilter>,
	<mailto:netfilter-request@lists.netfilter.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: netfilter-bounces@lists.netfilter.org
Errors-To: netfilter-bounces@lists.netfilter.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: Sven-Haegar Koch <haegar@sdinet.de>
Cc: netfilter@lists.netfilter.org

hello;

reply below.

On 6/20/05, Sven-Haegar Koch <haegar@sdinet.de> wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Jun 2005, terry l. ridder wrote:
>=20
> >>> one example of the leak is below:
> >>>
> >>> 200.0.0.0/8 is dropped if the destination port is 25 (smtp).
> >>
> >> iptables-save(8) output, please. What you posted here doesn't tell us
> >> much.
> >>
> >
> > while i have reservations concerning posting the output of iptables-sav=
e
> > i have placed it on my web server:
> >
> > http://204.238.34.206/iptables-save-20jun2005.txt
>=20
> You are filtering in the nat table.
>

yes, i am.

> The nat table gets only the first packet from each connection (the one
> that would match -m state --state NEW).
>

that is incorrect. the nat table is getting all packets.

>
> A retransmit from the blocked IP will not be a new connection,
> so it will pass through your rules.
>

again this is incorrect.

>=20
> And on your comment to another mail that you are not using connection
> tracking:
> This is wrong. If you have the nat table, you must have ip_conntrack
> loaded - and if its loaded it tracks your connections, even if you
> dont use -m state at all. There is no iptables nat without connection
> tracking.
>

i may have been looking at the wrong window, i will check on that.

>=20
> If you must filter in PREROUTING, do it at least in PREROUTING of the
> filter table.
>

why?

>=20
> c'ya
> sven
>=20


--=20
terry l. ridder ><>