I have setup OpenVPN on my R7800 router to connect to my VPN provider.
I want to bypass the tunnel for some sites.
For the sake of question let it be www.whatsmyip.com
I have two ip rules acting as kill switch for my VPN connection added to "Firewall" script:
iptables -I FORWARD -o $WAN_IF -m state --state NEW -j REJECT --reject-with icmp-host-prohibited
iptables -I FORWARD -o $WAN_IF -p tcp -m state --state NEW -j REJECT --reject-with tcp-reset
Actually a bit more complicated since I use Policy Based Routing (PBR), but it shouldn't matter. Reference
I have found that bypassing the tunnel for specific domain names is possible using the following commands:
allow-pull-fqdn
route www.whatsmyip.com 255.255.255.255 net_gateway
Reference
I have entered the above to "OpenVPN Client --> Additional Config" field.
The above seems to work, since the kill switch kicks in and forbids the connection and page is not loading.
So, I need to add a firewall rule to allow this connection.
The following rule is entered below the kill switch rules:
iptables -I OUTPUT -d whatsmyip.org -j ACCEPT
I came up to this reading this
Apparently, the rule I came up is not right.
How can I properly modify the above rule in order to bypass the kill switch successfully?
Thank you in advance.
I am posting the answer here for clarity.
iptables -I FORWARD -d whatsmyip.org -o $(get_wanface) -j ACCEPT
No need for allow-pull-fqdn, it is default in OpenVPN 2.4
I'm trying to implement a Three legged firewall but my iptables rules for the DMZ are not working as expected.
The Three legged firewall is a Firewall with 3 NIC's. One for the Router, One for the DMZ and one for the LAN.
My DMZ network is on another network separately from the LAN. There is a route rule between the Firewall and the DMZ.
Firewall LAN NIC: 192.168.0.1
Firewall DMZ NIC: 192.168.100.1
DMZ Server IP: 192.168.100.12
The DMZ Server gateway is 192.168.100.1
So as a DMZ I will allow all connections from the Internet thought the Firewall to the DMZ and forbid only the outgoing connections from the DMZ to the LAN (to keep it safe) but allow the incoming ones.
But I wasn't be able to block all incoming/outgoing connections to test if iptables rules are applying properly.
So I tried (always in the Firewall):
iptables -A FORWARD -s 192.168.100.12 -d 0.0.0.0 -j DROP
iptables -A FORWARD -d 192.168.100.12 -s 0.0.0.0 -j DROP
But I still can RDP to the server, navigate, and all.
Okay maybe an INPUT/OUTPUT:
iptables -A INPUT -s 192.168.100.12 -j DROP
iptables -A OUTPUT -d 192.168.100.12 -j DROP
But it was the same.
As a result I wasn't able to block all the connections to my DMZ Server proving that my rules weren't working at all.
I'm not a network guy but a programmer guy, so I'm completely sure that my poor networking skills are failling here so hard. Sorry for that.
Thank you for the help!
Okay. I think I solved it
iptables -A FORWARD -s 192.168.100.0/24 -d 192.168.0.0/24 -j DROP
iptables -A FORWARD -d 192.168.100.0/24 -s 192.168.0.0/24 -j DROP
iptables -A INPUT -s 192.168.100.0/24 -i $dmz_i -j DROP
That was the correct rules to block the access to the Firewall (the INPUT rule) and to the LAN (the FORWARD rules)
Thanks!
I'm trying to setup a haproxy gateway between server and client for full transparent proxy like below diagram. My main aim is to provide load balancing.
There is a simple application that listens port 25 in the server side. The client tries to connect port 25 on the gateway machine, and haproxy on the gateway chooses an avaliable server then redirects the connection to the server.
Network analysis of this approach produces tcp flow like diagram: The client resets the connection at the end since it doesn't send a syn packet to the server.
Is this haproxy usage true and my problem related configuation? Or should the client connect to the server directly (This doesn't make much sense to me but I'm not sure actually. If this is true then how haproxy will intervene the connection and make load balancing)?
EDIT:
I've started to think this problem is related to routing and NAT on the gateway. All of these three machines are in same subnetwork but I've added routes to the gateway for both client and server. Also rules on the gateway are:
iptables -t mangle -N DIVERT
iptables -t mangle -A DIVERT -j MARK --set-mark 0x01/0x01
iptables -t mangle -A DIVERT -j ACCEPT
iptables -t mangle -A PREROUTING -p tcp -m socket -j DIVERT
iptables -t mangle -A PREROUTING -p tcp --dport 25 -j TPROXY \
--tproxy-mark 0x1/0x1 --on-port 10025
ip route flush table 100
ip rule add fwmark 1 lookup 100
ip route add local 0.0.0.0/0 dev lo table 100
Now the question is what should I do in the gateway to change "syn-ack (src: S, dst: C)" to "syn-ack (src: GW, dst: C)"?
Here is the definition of my situation.
Here comes the transparent proxy mode: HAProxy can be configured to spoof the client IP address when establishing the TCP connection to the server. That way, the server thinks the connection comes from the client directly (of course, the server must answer back to HAProxy and not to the client, otherwise it can’t work: the client will get an acknowledge from the server IP while it has established the connection on HAProxy‘s IP).
And the answer is to set ip_nonlocal_bind system control.
We have a number of iptables rules for forwarding connections, which are solid and work well.
For example, port 80 forwards to port 8080 on the same machine (the webserver). When a given webserver is restarting, we forward requests to another IP on port 8080 which displays a Maintenance Page. In most cases, this other IP is on a separate server.
This all worked perfectly until we installed bridge-utils and changed to using a bridge br0 instead of eth0 as the interface.
The reason we have converted to using a bridge interface is to gain access to the MAC SNAT/DNAT capabilities of ebtables. We have no other reason to add a bridge interface on the servers, as they don't actually bridge connections over multiple interfaces.
I know this is a strange reason to add a bridge on the servers, but we are using the MAC SNAT/DNAT capabilities in a new project and ebtables seemed to be the safest, fastest and easiest way to go since we are already so familiar with iptables.
The problem is, since converting to a br0 interface, iptables PREROUTING forwarding to external servers is no longer working.
Internal PREROUTING forwarding works fine (eg: request comes in on port 80, it forwards to port 8080).
The OUTPUT chain also works (eg: we can connect outwards from the box via a local destination IP:8080, and the OUTPUT chain maps it to the Maintenance Server IP on a different server, port 8080, and returns a webpage).
However, any traffic coming into the box seems to die after the PREROUTING rule if the destination IP is external.
Here is an example of our setup:
Old Setup:
iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p tcp --dport 9080 -j DNAT --to-destination $MAINTIP:8080
iptables -a FORWARD --in-interface eth0 -j ACCEPT
iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING --out-interface eth0 -j MASQUERADE
echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward
New Setup: (old setup in various formats tried as well..., trying to log eth0 and br0 packets)
iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p tcp --dport 9080 -j DNAT --to-destination $MAINTIP:8080
iptables -a FORWARD --in-interface br0 -j ACCEPT
iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING --out-interface br0 -j MASQUERADE
echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward
Before changing to br0, the client request would go to server A at port 9080, and then be MASQUERADED off to a different server $MAINTIP.
As explained above, this works fine if $MAINTIP is on the same machine, but if it's on another server, the packet is never sent to $MAINTIP under the new br0 setup.
We want the packets to go out the same interface they came in on, MASQUERADED, as they did before we switched to using a single-NIC bridge (br0/bridge-utils).
I've tried adding logging at all stages in iptables. For some reason the iptables TRACE target doesn't work on this setup, so I can't get a TRACE log, but the packet shows up in the PREROUTING table, but seem to be silently dropped after that.
I've gone through this excellent document and have a better understanding of the flow between iptables and ebtables:
http://ebtables.sourceforge.net/br_fw_ia/br_fw_ia.html
From my understanding, it seems that the bridge is not forwarding the packets out the same interface they came in, and is dropping them. If we had a second interface added, I imagine it would be forwarding them out on that interface (the other side of the bridge) - which is the way bridges are meant to work ;-)
Is it possible to make this work the way we want it to, and PREROUTE/FORWARD those packets out over the same interface they came in on like we used to?
I'm hoping there are some ebtables rules which can work in conjunction with the iptables PREROUTING/FORWARD/POSTROUTING rules to make iptables forwarding work the way it usually does, and to send the routed packets out br0 (eth0) instead of dropping them.
Comments, flames, any and all advice welcome!
Best Regards,
Neale
I guess you did, but just to be sure, did you add eth0 to the bridge?
Although, I am not sure what the problem is, I will give some debugging tips which might assist you or other when debugging bridge/ebtables/iptables issues:
Make sure that "/proc/sys/net/bridge/bridge-nf-call-iptables" is enabled (1)
This cause bridge traffic to go through netfilter iptables code.
Note that this could affect performance.
Check for packet interception by the ebtabels/iptables rules,
Use the commands:
iptables -t nat -L -n -v
ebtables -t nat -L –Lc
This might help you to understand if traffic is matched and intercepted or not.
Check that IP NAT traffic appears in the conntrack table:
conntrack –L (if installed)
Or
cat /proc/net/nf_conntrack
Check MAC learning of the bridge
brctl showmacs br0
Use tcpdump on the eth0 and on br0 to check if packets seen at both as expected
Use the –e option to see MAC address as well.
For debugging, try to put the bridge interface in promiscuous mode, maybe the bridge receives packets with different MAC address (in promiscuous mode it will accept different MAC as well)
Maybe set bridge forward delay to 0
brctl setfd br0 0
And disable stp (spanning tree protocol)
brctl stp br0 off
What is your routing table looks like?
Try adding specific or default route rule with "dev br0"
I hope it helps a bit…
Good luck
Well only 1.5 years old but could be useful for later lookups. Looking at your link just now, it says specifically there brouting will ignore the packet, if MAC is on same side of bridge (and not another port or the bridge itself (see fig 2.b in your link).
Adding to that, I simply quote from this link: http://wiki.squid-cache.org/ConfigExamples/Intercept/LinuxBridge
"... ebtables DROP vs iptables DROP
In iptables which in most cases is being used to filter network traffic the DROP target means "packet disappear".
In ebtables a "-j redirect --redirect-target DROP" means "packet be gone from the bridge into the upper layers of the kernel such as routing\forwarding" (<-- relevant bit!)
Since the ebtables works in the link layer of the connection in order to intercept the connection we must "redirect" the traffic to the level which iptables will be able to intercept\tproxy.
ANd therein is your answer (bet added for future visitors of course, unless you are still at it ,p)
It seems I don't understand IPTABLES logic.
I reinstalled ubuntu server 11.10 on my server and turned on forwarding (net.ipv4.ip_forward=1 in /etc/sysctl.conf). Server has two network interfaces - eth0 (ip 192.168.1.1) looks to local network and eth1 (ip 213.164.156.130) looks to internet.
There's also another computer in local network with ip 192.168.1.2.
Then I added two simple rules to ITABLE *nat:
-A PREROUTING -i eth1 -j DNAT --to-destination 192.168.1.2
-A POSTROUTING -o eth1 -j SNAT --to-source 213.164.156.130
I thought that the first rule means forwarding every incoming packet to 192.168.1.2.
But if I run "ping google.com", "wget google.com" from server, they successfully work. Server receives packets and doesn't do forwarding, and I'm really stuck with this.
In case I run these commands from 192.168.1.2 they also work, that means here forwarding works.
These are NAT rules.
In your first rule, address translation occurs before routing the packet. You're changing the destination address to 192.168.1.2 and in the second rule, you're changing the source address before routing to 213.164.156.130.
I'm guessing you can ping & wget because your INPUT and OUTPUT chains have a default action.
TBH, I'm confused about what you actually want to do but if you want to forward packets, you need to modify the FORWARD chain. Here's a link for detailed and helpful information on iptables so you can understand the logic better - Ch14:_Linux_Firewalls_Using_iptables">http://www.linuxhomenetworking.com/wiki/index.php/Quick_HOWTO_:Ch14:_Linux_Firewalls_Using_iptables.