Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 22 Mar 2001 04:10:29 +0900
From:      itojun@iijlab.net
To:        Mike Harding <mvh@ix.netcom.com>
Cc:        freebsd-security@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: IPSEC/VPN/NAT and filtering
Message-ID:  <10518.985201829@coconut.itojun.org>
In-Reply-To: mvh's message of Wed, 21 Mar 2001 08:36:57 PST. <20010321163657.D0333113CB1@netcom1.netcom.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

>My modest proposal would be to have a sysctl variable to indicate an
>alternate interface to reinject the decrypted packets (like a local
>loopback, the default or maybe a new one, lo1).  Then you know that
>anything coming in that interface was inserted by the KAME stack and
>you can apply filtering to it.  This would allow firewall and IPSEC
>gateway functionality to be put into the same box.

	strong no to changing m->m_pkthdr.rcvif on IPsec tunnel operations.
	that behavior will kill scoped addresses, as well as recently-
	discussed-to-death strong host model node.

	see latest NetBSD source code tree, and the following URL, on how
	we handled it (now ipfilter looks at wire format packet only).  i have
	no environment/time to do the same on freebsd, but i can
	say that the foundations are there in kame and netbsd tree.
	(you can check if the packet went throught ip sec on inbound,
	by using ipsec_gethist())
	http://www.netbsd.org/Documentation/network/ipsec/#ipf-interaction

itojun

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?10518.985201829>