Ethical Hacking Learn to find vulnerabilities before the bad guys do! Gain real world hands on hacking experience in our state of the art hacking lab. Course designed and taught by expert instructors with years of penetration testing experience. 12 student maximum in every class. Certification attempt included in every package. | Computer Forensics Training at InfoSec Institute Gain the in-demand skills of a certified computer examiner, learn to recover trace data left behind by fraud, theft, and cybercrime perpetrators. Discover the source of computer crime and abuse at your organization so that it never happens again. All of our class sizes are guaranteed to be 12 students or less to facilitate one-on-one interaction with one of our expert instructors. |

| Subject: | Re: IPTables Spoof Protection |
|---|---|
| Date: | Wed, 22 Sep 2004 16:34:14 -0700 |
You will not be able to turn on rp_filter. The default route points out one interface, this makes the rp_filter only accept packets from the Internet via that interface. Anti-spoofing rules would be: for IFACE in eth0 eth1; do # True packets should route through lo iptables -A INPUT -i $IFACE -j DROP -s X.X.1.43 iptables -A INPUT -i $IFACE -j DROP -s X.X.4.43 # Should not see localnet (localhost) traffic on eth interfaces iptables -A INPUT -i $IFACE -j DROP -s 127.0.0.0/8 # Should not see RFC1918 addresses iptables -A INPUT -i $IFACE -j DROP -s 10.0.0.0/8 iptables -A INPUT -i $IFACE -j DROP -s 192.168.0.0/16 iptables -A INPUT -i $IFACE -j DROP -s 172.16.0.0/12 # 224 and higher are multicast and experimental (Not normaly routed) iptables -A INPUT -i $IFACE -j DROP -s 224.0.0.0/3 done do remember that one side will have asymetric routing. (The interface that does not have the default route will not transmit any packets, unless they are destined for the local LAN.) There are ways to fix this, but it gets a bit complicated, as you will need to use advanced routing concepts and commands. (You will need two routing tables and a policy of when to use which table.) On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 06:34:37 -0400, duiober@netscape.net <duiober@netscape.net> wrote:
Hello everyone,
i've a problem with a dual homed host and the configuration of spoof
protection.
The host is a Linux box with two interfaces:
OS-Version : Red Hat Linux release 9 (Shrike)
Kernel-Release : 2.4.20-24.9smp
CPU : 0 - 1 Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 2.80GHz
CPU : 1 - 2 Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 2.80GHz
Interface : eth0 X.X.4.43 X.X.4.255 (public class B net)
Interface : eth1 X.X.1.43 X.X.1.255 (public class B net)
/---------------------------------------------\
/ internet \
| |
\ /
----------------------------------------------
| |
router 1 router 2
| |
| ---------- |
subnet X.X.1.x -- eth1-| server |-eth0 -- subnet X.X.4.x
----------
Extraction from the script:
...
IF_0=eth0
IF_1=eth1
...
HOST="`/bin/hostname`"
...
echo "1" > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/all/rp_filter
...
# spoof protection
${IPTABLES} -A INPUT -s $HOST -i $IF_0 -j DROP
${IPTABLES} -A INPUT -s $HOST -i $IF_1 -j DROP
...
Observed problems:
* Enabling "rp_filter" causes some of my ssh-connection to freese (no
response,
my computer is part of the internet); pinging both interfaces from a
maschine in
the internet fails, one of them is not reachable; pinging them from a host
within
the subnet is possible
* Enabling the input-firewall-rules has the effect of a delay of a few
minutes(!)
when starting the script.
The aim of the "firewall"-script is to protect the host against undesired
connections.
I need an advice.
--
END OF LINE
-MCP
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: FORTIGATE, Kimberly McCollum |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | PIX failover without using HSRP, steve ruben |
| Previous by Thread: | IPTables Spoof Protection, DuiOber |
| Next by Thread: | IPTables, agflem |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |