From owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Thu Jan 31 11:22:43 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7FC9135830A for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2019 11:22:43 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from srs0=tl8j=qh=vega.codepro.be=kp@codepro.be) Received: from venus.codepro.be (venus.codepro.be [5.9.86.228]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.codepro.be", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 645FC87FD0 for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2019 11:22:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from srs0=tl8j=qh=vega.codepro.be=kp@codepro.be) Received: from vega.codepro.be (unknown [172.16.1.3]) by venus.codepro.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A4F4284CE; Thu, 31 Jan 2019 12:22:37 +0100 (CET) Received: by vega.codepro.be (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 65CE54EDA7; Thu, 31 Jan 2019 12:22:37 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2019 12:22:37 +0100 From: Kristof Provost To: ASV Cc: questions list Subject: Re: PF issue since 11.2-RELEASE Message-ID: <20190131112237.GC57976@vega.codepro.be> References: <989e79372513e9769c6857b531f14df8ce0b6f3a.camel@inhio.net> <51F0845A-2BB3-4BC9-977D-BB0E6C305ED3@FreeBSD.org> <20190129193609.GB57976@vega.codepro.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Checked-By-NSA: Probably User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 645FC87FD0 X-Spamd-Bar: --- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dmarc=fail reason="" header.from=sigsegv.be (policy=none); spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of srs0=tl8j=qh=vega.codepro.be=kp@codepro.be designates 5.9.86.228 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=srs0=tl8j=qh=vega.codepro.be=kp@codepro.be X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-3.25 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip4:5.9.86.228]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; TO_DN_ALL(0.00)[]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED(-0.20)[228.86.9.5.list.dnswl.org : 127.0.9.2]; MX_GOOD(-0.01)[cached: mx2.codepro.be]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.33)[-0.333,0]; IP_SCORE(-0.81)[ipnet: 5.9.0.0/16(-1.77), asn: 24940(-2.26), country: DE(-0.01)]; FORGED_SENDER(0.30)[kristof@sigsegv.be,srs0=tl8j=qh=vega.codepro.be=kp@codepro.be]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:24940, ipnet:5.9.0.0/16, country:DE]; FROM_NEQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[kristof@sigsegv.be,srs0=tl8j=qh=vega.codepro.be=kp@codepro.be]; DMARC_POLICY_SOFTFAIL(0.10)[sigsegv.be : SPF not aligned (relaxed), No valid DKIM, none] X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2019 11:22:44 -0000 On 2019-01-31 12:11:15 (+0100), ASV wrote: > Good afternoon, > one good news and one bad news. > > Good news is that it was that bloody zero missing which was "freaking > out" PF during the reload. How could I missed that? Perhaps erroneously > removed during the upgrade somehow or it was there but not causing > problems?! I'll never know. But it's fixed so thank you very much for > the good catch! > > The bad news is that PF is still not enforcing the rules within the > anchors. So fail2ban keeps populating the tables where the previously > mentioned rules are in place (reposted below) but these IPs keeps > bombing me with connection attempts passing the firewall with no > problems at all. Killing the states, reloading, restarting (PF and > fail2ban) doesn't fix that. > > # pfctl -a f2b/asterisk-udp -t f2b-asterisk-udp -s rules > block drop quick proto udp from to any port = sip > block drop quick proto udp from to any port = sip-tls > > # pfctl -a f2b/asterisk-tcp -t f2b-asterisk-tcp -s rules > block drop quick proto tcp from to any port = sip > block drop quick proto tcp from to any port = sip-tls > > Is it a known bug? > > What does pflog show? Regards, Kristof