Linux Netfilter discussions
 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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox