Hi,

> On 21 Jan 2020, at 18:22, Peter Müller <peter.mueller(a)ipfire.org> wrote:
> 
> Hello *,
> 
> since I am not sure whether I am dealing with a bug, a missing feature
> or my very own personal incompetence, asking the mailing list seemed
> reasonable for this. :-)

Yes, because we are only experts here :)

> For security purposes, dropping packets from source ports < 1024 is a good
> idea as the latter indicates successful compromise of services running on
> privileged ports. New connections are usually established from ports > 1023,
> so there is little legitimate scope for this if in doubt.

Hmm, okay. I get your point. However I am not sure if this will improve security too much.

> When creating a firewall rule via the WebIF, it does not seem to be possible
> to limit source _and_ destination ports if a predefined service (group) is
> used - the latter one always refers to the destination port(s).

Yes, because technically that is how those services work.

A browser will always connect from a random port to port 80. There is literally no use-case to limit this to a pre-defined port. You never even know if you are having any NAT routers on the ways that will change your source port.

> As soon as a single protocol such as TCP or UDP is selected, however, a field
> "source port" is available.
> 
> Is this behaviour intentional? If yes, how do I limit firewall rules to
> certain source ports then? Aren't the descriptions "service" and "service group"
> misleading?

Those are only for destinations.

What we could do is limiting source ports to > 1024 by default, but I am not sure if that will make a noticeable difference for anyone.

-Michael

> Thanks, and best regards,
> Peter Müller