From owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jun 11 03:05:05 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A9CC37B404 for ; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 03:05:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from highland.isltd.insignia.com (highland.isltd.insignia.com [195.74.141.1]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D5AB43FB1 for ; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 03:05:04 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from subscriber@insignia.com) Received: from dailuaine.isltd.insignia.com (dailuaine.isltd.insignia.com [172.16.64.11])h5BA52Ef033422 for ; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 11:05:02 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from subscriber@insignia.com) Received: from exchange-uk.isltd.insignia.com (exchange-uk [172.16.64.9]) h5BA52D0043037 for ; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 11:05:02 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from subscriber@insignia.com) Received: by exchange-uk.isltd.insignia.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 11 Jun 2003 11:05:02 +0100 Message-ID: <2F03DF3DDE57D411AFF4009027B8C36704129AE8@exchange-uk.isltd.insignia.com> From: Subscriber To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 11:05:00 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.32 (www . roaringpenguin . com / mimedefang) Subject: IPFW: combining "divert natd" with "keep-state" X-BeenThere: freebsd-security@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Security issues [members-only posting] List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 10:05:06 -0000 I've been using ipfw for a while to create a router with NAT and packet filtering, but have never combined it with stateful filtering, instead using things like "established" to accept incoming TCP packets which are part of a conversation initiated from the "inside". I'd like to move to using keep-state/check-state to get tighter filtering and also to allow outgoing UDP and the replies, which currently I block. But I just can't get my head around how to do this. On the way out, should the dynamic rules be created to match the pre-NAT or post-NAT packets? The man pages are good at explaining both NAT and dynamic rules but not both in combination. Jim Hatfield