|
||||||||
On Sat, 10 Jul 2004, Joe Lagreca wrote: > > Ok, the problem has evolved. The only device on OPT1 before was the > AP, but now I connected OPT1 to a switch and have the AP plugged into > the switch along with another computer. > > > The first rule, if it were needed, would need to be in the LAN section, > > not the OPT1 section. The concept is that the rules determine what > > traffic origination is allowed *in* from a given interface. However, if > > you have the default rule allowing traffic from LAN to anywhere, then it's > > superfluous. > > I am now very confused about m0n0 firewall rules. Here are my rules for: > > OPT1 interface > Proto Source Port Destination Port Description > * OPT1 net * ! LAN net * Default OPT1 > -> WAN but not LAN The "! LAN net" part means that traffic from OPT1->LAN is blocked. That's often desirable, but you should at least allow ICMP so you can test with pings. > Is it good security practice to also include a rule at the bottom of > any interface list to deny everything but what was explicity allowed > above? Or do I have the whole concept wrong? In general, yes, but m0n0wall already does this. In fact, it does it at two levesl, since it stes the overall default policy to "deny" and additionally adds explicit "deny" rules at the bottom of the list. Both levels are internal and not visible in the GUI, although the second is visible in ipfstat. See below for why it may not appear that this is the case. > > You also haven't answered my question about what default gateway is > > configured *in the AP*. If that's anything other than the m0n0wall's OPT1 > > IP, then packets from the AP to the LAN won't route correctly. This can > > be worked around with NAT, but that's the less desirable choice. > > I believe this is where my whole problem was. There is no gateway > setup in the AP, and I don't believe it is possible. I configured the > AP's LAN address to be 192.168.5.5 with subnet mask of 255.255.255.0. That sounds like a serious problem. > Above I mentioned I now have another device on OPT1. The BIG NEWS is > that I can ping it from LAN! Which mostly means my problem is solved. > However the question still remains, how can I ping the computer on > OPT1, but not the AP? Is it simply because the AP doesnt have a > gateway setup for its LAN? Of course. The AP only has an "automatic" route for directly-connected machines. For anything else, it needs to have a "default gateway" to route through, and *that* IP needs to be directly connected, i.e. within the same block defined by the netmask. First I'd dig into the AP further to see if it's really true that it can't have a default gateway. For example, it might not have the term "default gateway", but allow you to configure a gateway IP of 0.0.0.0/0 (which is how most systems represent it internally, anyway). If it doesn't use CIDR notation, then that woould be 0.0.0.0 netmask 0.0.0.0. Another issue is whether the AP will be operating as a bridge or as a router. In the former case, the AP's configuration only affects the ability to communicate with the AP itself, and the ability of the WLAN clients to work would depend on whether *they* see the m0n0wall as the default gateway. In the latter case, they would need to see the AP as their default gateway, and the AP would need to see the m0n0wall as such. BTW, if the AP operates as a router and doesn't have a default gateway, then the clients wouldn't be able to acces the Internet, either, even if the m0n0wall weren't there. If you do need IP connectivity between the LAN and the AP (for real client traffic) *and* can't set up its default gateway properly, then you probably need Proxy ARP. NAT could be configured to handle LAN->WLAN connections, but it wouldn't be practical for WLAN->WAN. With this approach, the LAN and OPT1 would need to appear as the *same* subnet to the AP, and all accessible LAN machines would need Proxy ARP entries on the OPT1 side. In order to avoid having to do this in reverse as well, you'd want to choose the addresses carefully so that the LAN subnet is a sub-subnet of the LAN/OPT1 combo. With ..50. addresses on LAN and ..51. addresses on OPT1, this would work if you defined the OPT1 as /23 but kept /24 for the LAN. The m0nowall would do CIDR-style "best match" routing and thus select LAN for anything in the LAN range, even if it also matched OPT1. The LAN machines would still see the OPT1 subnet as "foreign" and route through the m0n0wall. Only the OPT1 side would be confused about what's "local" and need Proxy ARP to help it out. *But*, if the AP operates as a bridge and the only need for IP connectivity to the AP itself is for configuration and monitoring purposes, then you can set up a NAT mapping "using "Advanced Outbound NAT" to make LAN machines appear to be the m0n0wall itself when accessing the AP. Note that if you enable "Advanced Outbound NAT", the default LAN->WAN mapping rule isn't included by default and must be added explicitly. It would probably be better if this happened automatically. There also seems to be a bug in selecting an outbound NAT rule for editing. I currently have two, and whichever one I click on to edit, it gives me the other. But if I select the "wrong" one, I can edit the intended one just fine. > > There are a number of things that make this case more complicated than > > just inserting a firewall/router between WAN and LAN, some of which are > > m0n0wall-specific and some of which aren't. The only m0n0wall issue that > > I consider a mistake is the inappropriate default netmask on OPT1. > > I couldn't agree more. Actually when assigning an IP to any > interface, it should default to a netmask such as /24 or some other > commonly used network. Ideally it would default to the proper netmaks for the address class, but without relying on Javascript there's no way it could pick the right number in the popup. However, the popup could have a "default" option. On Sat, 10 Jul 2004, Dinesh Nair wrote: > On Sat, 10 Jul 2004, Joe Lagreca wrote: > > > I am now very confused about m0n0 firewall rules. Here are my rules for: > > have you applied to the rules and/or rebooted your m0n0 after creating the > rules below ? > > > > > OPT1 interface > > Proto Source Port Destination Port Description > > * OPT1 net * ! LAN net * Default OPT1 > > -> WAN but not LAN > > > > LAN interface > > Proto Source Port Destination Port Description > > * LAN net * * * > > Default LAN -> any > > > > The rule for OPT1 (reading from top down) will allow traffic from OPT1 > > to pass to any interface, except LAN. > > exactly, which would prevent you being able to ping any boxen hanging off > OPT1. No, that's not true. The "pass" rules become "keep state" rules internally. When a LAN->OPT1 ping is allowed, it creates a state entry that allows the response to get through regardless of any rules. It's only *initiating* a ping from OPT1->LAN that wouldn't work with the above rules, though I'd recommend adding a rule to allow this as well. > > Above I mentioned I now have another device on OPT1. The BIG NEWS is > > that I can ping it from LAN! Which mostly means my problem is solved. > > which is odd, considering that you have a rule which prevents the ICMP > replies to go back to the LAN by blocking all packets from OPT1 Net to LAN > Net. Not odd at all, see above. :-) I think the real problem is routing, not the firewall. Fred Wright |