Re: IPFire 2.27 - Core Update 160 released

[Bernhard Bitsch <bbitsch@ipfire.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3952 bytes --]

Hi Daniel,

I tried to eliminate this double messages.
First I found the standard rules in 'Incoming Firewall Access' for DNS 
enabled. Interpreting these as the 'RETURN' rules discussed in the 
development process, I defined similiar rules for NTP.
The 'INPUTFW' messages are gone. They show up again, when I enable 
logging for these rules.
Maybe this helps a bit to clarify the issue.

Bernhard

Am 06.10.2021 um 15:22 schrieb Daniel Weismüller:
> 6. Oktober 2021 14:12, "Bernhard Bitsch" <bbitsch(a)ipfire.org> schrieb:
> 
>> Hello,
>>
>> Am 06.10.2021 um 12:04 schrieb Daniel Weismüller:
>>
>>> Hello
>>> I have also had a look at this.
>>> There are now two Wiki pages on this topic.
>>> - A general one (https://wiki.ipfire.org/configuration/firewall/rules/redirect-services).
>>> - A very specific one for DNS redirect (https://wiki.ipfire.org/configuration/firewall/dns).
>>> This is true, but the first page can't be found by a normal research in the wiki.
>>> Since core160 the general method works. This is equivalent to the method 1 described on the
>>> specific page.
>>> Following the general instructions, I have created a few firewall rules to redirect DNS, DoT and
>>> NTP.
>>> This works very well now.
>>> In general, I think that general instructions are always better than specific step-by-step
>>> instructions.
>>> Agreed.
>>> In my eyes, the described method 2, which had to be taken as a temporary solution, is therefore
>>> obsolete. In addition, pure blocking can lead to some devices no longer working.
>>> Having implemented the second method until now, I can see a difference.
>>
>> Label 'DNAT' in the logging isn't nice. 'REDIRECT' would be more helpful.
>> If I define a rule for NTP, I get two log entries ( one with 'DNAT', one with 'INPUTFW' ). A
>> similiar rule for DNS produces one log message only.
>> -
>> Bernhard
> 
> I have checked my logs and cannot confirm this.
> 
> 15:16:30 	INPUTFW 	blue0 	UDP 	192.168.56.127
> 192.168.56.1 	57803
> 53(DOMAIN) 		b8:85:84:a6:a0:f7
> 15:16:30 	DNAT 	blue0 	UDP 	192.168.56.127
> 192.168.56.1 	57803
> 53(DOMAIN) 		b8:85:84:a6:a0:f7
> 15:16:30 	INPUTFW 	green0 	UDP 	192.168.55.30
> 192.168.55.1 	123(NTP)
> 123(NTP) 		00:1a:e8:ad:07:52
> 15:16:30 	DNAT 	green0 	UDP 	192.168.55.30
> 192.168.55.1 	123(NTP)
> 123(NTP) 		00:1a:e8:ad:07:52
> 
> As you can see, two entries are always generated for me.
> 
> -
> Daniel
> 
>>
>>> Do you see it the same way?
>>>> -
>>> Daniel
>>> 5. Oktober 2021 22:10, "Bernhard Bitsch" <bbitsch(a)ipfire.org> schrieb:
>>> Hi all,
>>>> Thanks.
>>>> So it was only a misunderstanding. I thought, there would be options to redirect DNS requests and
>>>> NTP requests.
>>>> But this 'any port solution' is much mightier.
>>>> I'll try to convert my actual firewall.local solution to the main stream and report about the
>>>> results.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Bernhard
>>>>
>>>> Am 05.10.2021 um 18:28 schrieb Michael Tremer:
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>> Simply using -j REDIRECT.
>>> This was always part of the firewall engine, but the UI was broken and did not allow to create
>>> these rules.
>>> -Michael
>>> On 5 Oct 2021, at 14:55, Bernhard Bitsch <bbitsch(a)ipfire.org> wrote:
>>> Just a question. How is the activation of redirection implemented?
>>>
>>> Am 05.10.2021 um 12:45 schrieb IPFire Project:
>>>
>>> IPFire Logo
>>> there is a new post from Michael Tremer on the IPFire Blog:
>>> *IPFire 2.27 - Core Update 160 released*
>>> This is the release announcement for IPFire 2.27 - Core Update 160.
>>> It comes with a large number of bug fixes and package updates and
>>> prepare for removing Python 2 which has reached its end of life.
>>> Click Here To Read More <https://blog.ipfire.org/post/ipfire-2-27-core-update-160-released>
>>> The IPFire Project
>>> Don't like these emails? Unsubscribe <https://people.ipfire.org/unsubscribe>.