From owner-freebsd-questions Fri Jun 9 14:38:29 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from post.xecu.net (post.xecu.net [216.127.136.211]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C57837B75C for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 14:38:25 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from andy@xecu.net) Received: from shell.xecu.net (shell.xecu.net [216.127.136.216]) by post.xecu.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79F8B474E for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 17:36:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (andy@localhost) by shell.xecu.net (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA21479 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2000 17:38:13 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shell.xecu.net: andy owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 17:38:13 -0400 (EDT) From: Andy Dills To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Hijacking DNS with ipfw Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG I'm having what appears to be a fundemental problem, and I was hoping somebody on the list might have an idea on how to proceed. As far as I can tell from the archives, this hasn't been addressed. I'm in a situation where I have customers with various DNS servers configured. These customers are all behind a FreeBSD (4.0-R) box. The FreeBSD box is running named (among other things). I had thought that this rule would cut it: ipfw add 10 fwd 127.0.0.1,53 udp from any to any 53 recv xl1 But that just doesn't work. I'm assuming it's because maybe named gets confused because fwd rules preserve the dest IP (as fwd rules are intended to be used in transparent cacheing). Does anybody have a suggestion on how to approach this? Thanks, Andy xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Andy Dills 301-682-9972 Xecunet, LLC www.xecu.net xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Dialup * Webhosting * E-Commerce * High-Speed Access To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message