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
next parent 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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox