From owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Jun  2 16:13:02 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37FBB37B401
	for <freebsd-security@freebsd.org>;
	Mon,  2 Jun 2003 16:13:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cactus.fi.uba.ar (cactus.fi.uba.ar [157.92.49.108])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D1B443F93
	for <freebsd-security@freebsd.org>;
	Mon,  2 Jun 2003 16:13:01 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from fgleiser@cactus.fi.uba.ar)
Received: from cactus.fi.uba.ar (cactus.fi.uba.ar [157.92.49.108])
	by cactus.fi.uba.ar (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h52NBemA021933;
	Mon, 2 Jun 2003 20:11:40 -0300 (ART)
	(envelope-from fgleiser@cactus.fi.uba.ar)
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 20:11:40 -0300 (ART)
From: Fernando Gleiser <fgleiser@cactus.fi.uba.ar>
To: Vlad GALU <vladg@vipnet.ro>
In-Reply-To: <20030602174758.3f85db72.vladg@vipnet.ro>
Message-ID: <20030602200857.T6733-100000@cactus.fi.uba.ar>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-119.5 required=5.0
	tests=EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,
	      REPLY_WITH_QUOTES,USER_IN_WHITELIST
	version=2.53
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.53 (1.174.2.15-2003-03-30-exp)
cc: freebsd-security@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Packet flow through IPFW+IPF+IPNAT ?
X-BeenThere: freebsd-security@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security issues [members-only posting]
	<freebsd-security.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-security>,
	<mailto:freebsd-security-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-security>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-security@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-security-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-security>,
	<mailto:freebsd-security-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2003 23:13:02 -0000

On Mon, 2 Jun 2003, Vlad GALU wrote:

> 	Example one: IPF is compiled in kernel, IPFW is a module. In this case
> IPFW stands 'outside' of IPF.
> 	Example two: viceversa: the order in which they take action is reversed
> too.

Are you sure? Last time I saw the code (almost a year ago) it didn't
make a difference if they were loaded as modules or compiled in kernel.
The hooks were in the same place.

> 	IPNAT is always 'outside' IPF.

Or, in other words, IPF always 'sees' the real IPs, not the NATed ones.


			Fer