Summary: | firewall: iptables rules are being created in the wrong chain | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | IPFire | Reporter: | Michael Tremer <michael.tremer> |
Component: | --- | Assignee: | Stefan Schantl <stefan.schantl> |
Status: | CLOSED FIXED | QA Contact: | Peter Müller <peter.mueller> |
Severity: | Major Usability | ||
Priority: | Will only affect a few users | CC: | peter.mueller, peter.mueller, stefan.schantl |
Version: | 2 | ||
Hardware: | unspecified | ||
OS: | Unspecified | ||
Bug Depends on: | |||
Bug Blocks: | 12278 |
Description
Michael Tremer
2020-01-04 14:02:59 UTC
I bumped into this as well - it certainly is a major problem. Hi. Well, isn't the default behaviour of the firewall to block traffic from orange to green/blue? What do you expect from this rule? Why should a orange machine have access to the webproxy? Shouldn't it directly communicate with the Internet? So the question is: Should the Webinterface just give an errormessage when trying to create such a rule or should the firewalldesign be changed, so that orange Ip's can access green? (In reply to Alexander Marx from comment #2) > Well, isn't the default behaviour of the firewall to block traffic from > orange to green/blue? Yes it is, but firewall rules can be created to make exceptions to this rule. > What do you expect from this rule? I am expecting an iptables rule in INPUTFW if the destination IP address is one of the IP addresses of the firewall itself. > Why should a orange machine have access to the webproxy? Shouldn't it > directly communicate with the Internet? Take this as an example :) I am using rules like this for various other things. The problem is the same if I were to create rules with the GREEN or BLUE IP address as destination. > So the question is: > > Should the Webinterface just give an errormessage when trying to create such > a rule or should the firewalldesign be changed, so that orange Ip's can > access green? No, it should accept the rule (and it is doing it), but it needs to create it in INPUTFW and not FORWARDFW (or probably both). I believe firewall.pl would behave correctly. The CGI script is just writing the rule to the wrong configuration file. Committed a patch for this one. https://patchwork.ipfire.org/patch/3982/ > Committed a patch for this one.
Thank you very much. :-)
Since that patch did not made it into the Git repository, yet, I'll set this back to ASSIGNED so we won't lose track on it. In addition, I will test your patch and provide feedback soon.
This patch unfortunately does not work correctly: https://lists.ipfire.org/pipermail/development/2021-March/009650.html Ups. try this one instead: https://patchwork.ipfire.org/patch/3999/ Users seem to bump into this, too: https://community.ipfire.org/t/incoming-firewall-access-when-using-standard-networks/5701 Fix has been sent to the development mailing list: https://patchwork.ipfire.org/project/ipfire/patch/20210716163558.3779-1-stefan.schantl@ipfire.org/ Resetting this back to ASSIGNED since the patch has not been merged yet. Shipped here: https://git.ipfire.org/?p=ipfire-2.x.git;a=commit;h=d10a558196dc6a8c3559659686f74d1722c8741b |