From owner-freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Mar 15 10:40:18 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE807106566C for ; Sun, 15 Mar 2009 10:40:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from sem@FreeBSD.org) Received: from sunner.semmy.ru (sunner.semmy.ru [195.54.209.159]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B2878FC08 for ; Sun, 15 Mar 2009 10:40:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from sem@FreeBSD.org) Received: from [77.41.76.79] (helo=[172.16.100.19]) by sunner.semmy.ru with esmtpa (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LinlR-000E6x-GX; Sun, 15 Mar 2009 13:40:17 +0300 Message-ID: <49BCDB0D.6070608@FreeBSD.org> Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2009 13:40:13 +0300 From: Sergey Matveychuk User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Luigi Rizzo References: <200903132246.49159.dima_bsd@inbox.lv> <49BBB94A.7040208@FreeBSD.org> <200903142031.53326.dima_bsd@inbox.lv> <49BCCC9D.30109@FreeBSD.org> <20090315100206.GA63505@onelab2.iet.unipi.it> In-Reply-To: <20090315100206.GA63505@onelab2.iet.unipi.it> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org, Dmitriy Demidov Subject: Re: keep-state rules inadequately handles big UDP packets or fragmented IP packets? X-BeenThere: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IPFW Technical Discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2009 10:40:18 -0000 Luigi Rizzo wrote: > On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 12:38:37PM +0300, Sergey Matveychuk wrote: >> Dmitriy Demidov wrote: >>> Hi Luigi. Thank you for answer. >>> It is a big "surprise" for me that reassembling of IP datagrams is done >>> not *before* they go into firewall, but *after* :( >> But what's wrong with it? A fragment got from net, pass firewall and >> store. After all fragments we got, OS reassembly a packet and pass it >> through firewall again. > > Currently we don't have a way to re-invoke the firewall after > reassembly. In fact, we should probably provide hooks before and > after reassembly, and use them in a configurable way. It sounds like a security issue. We can construct any packet that pass through firewall? -- Dixi. Sem.