Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 00:56:56 +0100 From: RW <list-freebsd-2004@morbius.sent.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: IPFW Problems Message-ID: <200604210056.57359.list-freebsd-2004@morbius.sent.com> In-Reply-To: <cb5206420604192114m2a07e32cx6cd706c816d6c82@mail.gmail.com> References: <8921D35B-1F12-4212-9B62-0CC1CC8F5AE5@allresearch.com> <4446D5A4.8030502@mykitchentable.net> <cb5206420604192114m2a07e32cx6cd706c816d6c82@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thursday 20 April 2006 05:14, Andrew Pantyukhin wrote: > On 4/20/06, Drew Tomlinson <drew@mykitchentable.net> wrote: > > On 4/17/2006 2:29 PM Noah Silverman wrote: > > > ipfw add 00280 allow tcp from any to any 22 out via bge0 setup > > > keep-state ipfw add 00299 deny log all from any to any out via bge0 > > > ipfw add 0430 allow log tcp from any to me 22 in via bge0 setup limit > > > src-addr 2 > > > > I think this line is your problem. "setup" matches the initial packet > > with the syn flag set. However since you have not added "keep-state", > > no rule gets added to the dynamic rule set for this connection. "limit" creates a dynamic rule, just like keep-state > Yes. 'setup' is from "semi-stateful" firewall functionality while > 'keep-state' is from fully stateful one. You can't use both in > one rule without strange consequences. Just delete 'setup' > words in both rules - it'll probably be fine. Yes you can. When I used IPFW I did it that way and never had any problems. All it's saying is that a dynamic rule can only be setup by the legitimate first packet of a tcp handshake, and not by an out-of-sequence tcp packet. Once the dynamic rule exists, it passes packets with any tcp flags.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200604210056.57359.list-freebsd-2004>