From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Nov 29 14:45:01 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E221416A4CE
	for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>;
	Mon, 29 Nov 2004 14:45:01 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from yearning.mcc.ac.uk (yearning.mcc.ac.uk [130.88.203.23])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5584743D41
	for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>;
	Mon, 29 Nov 2004 14:45:01 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from jcm@FreeBSD-uk.eu.org)
Received: from dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org ([130.88.200.97])
	by yearning.mcc.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.43 (FreeBSD))
	id 1CYmlv-0000kl-VU; Mon, 29 Nov 2004 14:45:00 +0000
Received: from dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	iATEixlZ069871;	Mon, 29 Nov 2004 14:44:59 GMT
	(envelope-from jcm@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org)
Received: (from jcm@localhost)
	by dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org (8.12.10/8.12.6/Submit) id iATEiw1q069870;
	Mon, 29 Nov 2004 14:44:58 GMT
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 14:44:58 +0000
From: Jonathon McKitrick <jcm@FreeBSD-uk.eu.org>
To: Ruben de Groot <mail25@bzerk.org>,
	Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@ceid.upatras.gr>,
	freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Message-ID: <20041129144458.GA69798@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org>
References: <20041127215612.GA86416@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org>
	<20041128013135.GD662@gothmog.gr>
	<20041128044847.GA1435@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org>
	<20041128122741.GB43088@gothmog.gr> <20041129113020.GA72673@ei.bzerk.org>
	<20041129132114.GA66047@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org>
	<20041129140930.GA73929@ei.bzerk.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20041129140930.GA73929@ei.bzerk.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i
Subject: Re: Is this a hole in my firewall?
X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: User questions <freebsd-questions.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>,
	<mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>,
	<mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 14:45:02 -0000

On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 03:09:30PM +0100, Ruben de Groot wrote:
: On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 01:21:14PM +0000, Jonathon McKitrick typed:
: > On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 12:30:20PM +0100, Ruben de Groot wrote:
: > : He's using ppp-nat. So packets from his laptop will first hit rule #300 and
: > : only after that get "nat'ed". I believe this is normal behaviour.
: > 
: > Ah, yes.  I always forget about ppp-nat.
: > 
: > So, then, is this the best way to allow my laptop packets out?  Or does it
: > still leave the laptop exposed?  I'd like to protect all the machines with
: > one firewall, while keeping it simple, if possible.
: 
: Your laptop won't be "exposed" by this. You could however finetune your
: ruleset a little bit by modifying rule 300 to something like:
: 
: allow ip from ${INTERNAL_NET} to any keep-state out xmit tun0
: 
: where INTERNAL_NET would be e.g. 192.168.0.0/24

Should I also run a firewall on the laptop then, since all traffic to the
laptop is allowed to pass?


jm
--