From owner-freebsd-questions Wed Jan 9 14:20:35 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mail.27in.tv (roc-66-24-112-7.rochester.rr.com [66.24.112.7]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25E1F37B41C for ; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 14:20:25 -0800 (PST) Received: (from root@localhost) by mail.27in.tv (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g09MKMb91438; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 17:20:22 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from cjm2@27in.tv) Received: from 27in.tv (roc-66-24-112-7.rochester.rr.com [66.24.112.7]) by mail.27in.tv (8.11.6/8.11.6av) with SMTP id g09MKHI91429; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 17:20:18 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from cjm2@27in.tv) From: cjm2@27in.tv Received: from 216.153.201.190 (SquirrelMail authenticated user cjm2) by www.27in.tv with HTTP; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 17:20:19 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3156.216.153.201.190.1010614819.squirrel@www.27in.tv> Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 17:20:19 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: weird problems with ipfw rule not applying itself... To: In-Reply-To: References: X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Cc: X-Mailer: SquirrelMail (version 1.2.3 [cvs]) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Joe, This is simply because TCP packets must be acknowledged in some form, even if it's just to reject the packet. When a port is open and has a listening service, an acknowledging packet is sent back to the client. When a port is open but has nothing listening to it, it is actively rejected. But, when you use ipfw to deny a packet it's simply dropped, nothing is ever sent to the requesting client. This is how nmap can tell the difference between the three different states open/closed/filtered. UDP packets are _not_ acknowledged by the receiving machine. So whether a packet is sent to an open port (with a listening service) or it is dropped by the firewall, it looks exactly the same to the requesting client. I do believe a reject is sent back to the client when the port isn't filtered but also has no listening service. Giving you the distinction between open/closed udp ports. Hope this helps. --Chris > I have a 4.4-RELEASE acting as a gateway. When I start out, my ruleset > looks like this: > > gateway# ipfw show > 00100 43866683 26545107129 allow ip from any to any > 65535 0 0 deny ip from any to any > > Simple. Let everything through, and it works great. So then I decided > to completely block UDP port 514 (syslogd), so I issued this command: > > ipfw add 00050 deny udp from any to any 514 > > So now my ruleset looks like this: > > gateway# ipfw show > 00050 0 0 deny udp from any to any 514 > 00100 43866913 26545121843 allow ip from any to any > 65535 0 0 deny ip from any to any > > > So far, so good. The problem is, then I run `nmap` from an off network > site, and nmap tells me that UDP 514 is _open_ (!) How can this be ? > > So I go back to the firewall and 'ipfw show' again, and I get: > > gateway# ipfw show > 00050 5 140 deny udp from any to any 514 > 00100 43866913 26545121843 allow ip from any to any > 65535 0 0 deny ip from any to any > > > So as you can see, the counters for the UDP 514 rule were incremented > and everything! So how come nmap still shows UDP 514 as "open" ? > > As a test, I closed some tcp ports with the exact same command (but > with tcp, and port 443 this time) and nmap said those ports are > filtered...so that works...and I also tried with udp port 161, but > again, the rule is in, the rule counters even get incremented, but > nmap still says the port is OPEN. > > How can this be ? > > any help appreciated - thanks! > > _________________________________________________________________ > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at > http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message