Hello Houman, Depends on what exactly you're doing on your server. It's not possible to give you a generalized answer. You shouldn't script with iptables though. Use iptables-save and -restore (save prints out a serialised form of your loaded iptables rules, restore loads data in said form).
Kind regards
Noel
Am 14.10.19 um 14:30 schrieb Houman:
> Hello Noel,
>
> It's a bare-metal server that I'm renting (it's not a virtual server) so I
> assume that it should be in its own private subnet. I have tried to follow up
> with them, but their support doesn't communicate very well in English. All I
> could gather is the following:
>
> 1) Based on the ROOT SERVER SERVICE AGREEMENT, the scanning of foreign
> networks or foreign IP addresses is not permitted.
> 2) These RFC1918 networks are not reachable via my external interface (Then
> why is it a problem? I don't understand them)
>
> I did some further research. It seems it is better to do the REJECT rule only
> on the interface that is connected to the Internet. Otherwise, I could be
> blocking LAN or vpn peer-to-peer communications.
>
> |export INET_IFACE=$(ip route get 8.8.8.8 | awk -- '{printf $5}')|
> |iptables -A FORWARD -o $INET_IFACE -d 10.0.0.0/8 <http://10.0.0.0/8> -j
> REJECT iptables -A FORWARD -o $INET_IFACE -d 172.16.0.0/12
> <http://172.16.0.0/12> -j REJECT iptables -A FORWARD -o $INET_IFACE -d
> 192.168.0.0/16 <http://192.168.0.0/16> -j REJECT|
> Do you agree with this? Or is it rather unnecessary for a StrongSwan server?
>
> Thanks,
> Houman
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 at 14:00, Noel Kuntze <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> Hello Houman,
>
> You can do that. I wonder though why that is a problem. Are they
> providing a private subnet on the link of your server?
>
> Kind regards
>
> Noel
>
> Am 14.10.19 um 12:03 schrieb Houman:
> > Hi Noel,
> >
> > That makes sense, thank you.
> >
> > I received a followup email from our server provider (about a new
> netscan attempt from one of our users today).
> >
> > """
> > We would recommend that you set up a local firewall and block outgoing
> traffic to the following prefixes
> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1918
> > > 10.0.0.0/8 <http://10.0.0.0/8> <http://10.0.0.0/8>
> > > 172.16.0.0/12 <http://172.16.0.0/12> <http://172.16.0.0/12>
> > > 192.168.0.0/16 <http://192.168.0.0/16> <http://192.168.0.0/16>
> > Please block this range of RFC1918 on your server.
> > We would like to avoid further network abuse from your end.
> > """
> >
> > Is this as simple as
> >
> > iptables -A FORWARD -d 10.0.0.0/8 <http://10.0.0.0/8>
> <http://10.0.0.0/8> -j REJECT
> > iptables -A FORWARD -d 172.16.0.0/12 <http://172.16.0.0/12>
> <http://172.16.0.0/12> -j REJECT
> > iptables -A FORWARD -d 192.168.0.0/16 <http://192.168.0.0/16>
> <http://192.168.0.0/16> -j REJECT
> >
> > Or am I oversimplifying this?
> >
> > Many Thanks,
> > Houman
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 at 13:02, Noel Kuntze
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Hello Houman,
> >
> > Depends on if you have a whitelist or blacklist rule set.
> >
> > With the ruleset you have provided in this email, you need to
> accept the stuff you want. So up to 5 new connections per second.
> >
> > Kind regards
> >
> > Noel
> >
> > Am 14.10.19 um 10:40 schrieb Houman:
> > > Hi Noel,
> > >
> > > Actually based on my firewall config, I think I have to DROP it
> instead of ACCEPT if it's over the 5/sec limit? Don't you agree?
> > >
> > > iptables -I FORWARD 2 -m conntrack --ctstate NEW -m hashlimit
> --hashlimit-name NETSCAN --hashlimit-mode srcip --hashlimit-srcmask 32
> --hashlimit-above 5/s -j DROP
> > >
> > > So I replace *hashlimit-upto* with *hashlimit-above* following
> with a DROP.
> > >
> > > This is my current firewall settings based on your previous
> suggestion. If Iptables is clever enough to DROP the connection if
> hashlimit-upto is exceeded, it should work as well.
> > >
> > > # iptables-save
> > > *filter
> > > :INPUT DROP [6374:460035]
> > > :FORWARD DROP [7119:2071794]
> > > :OUTPUT ACCEPT [19665335:23255290771]
> > > -A INPUT -i lo -j ACCEPT
> > > -A INPUT -m conntrack --ctstate RELATED,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT
> > > -A INPUT -p tcp -m tcp --dport 443 -j ACCEPT
> > > -A INPUT -p tcp -m tcp --dport 2022 -j ACCEPT
> > > -A INPUT -p udp -m udp --dport 500 -j ACCEPT
> > > -A INPUT -p udp -m udp --dport 4500 -j ACCEPT
> > > -A FORWARD -s 10.10.0.0/17 <http://10.10.0.0/17>
> <http://10.10.0.0/17> <http://10.10.0.0/17> -d 10.10.0.0/17
> <http://10.10.0.0/17> <http://10.10.0.0/17> <http://10.10.0.0/17> -j DROP
> > > -A FORWARD -m conntrack --ctstate NEW -m hashlimit
> --hashlimit-upto 5/sec --hashlimit-burst 5 --hashlimit-mode srcip
> --hashlimit-name NETSCAN -j ACCEPT
> > > -A FORWARD -m policy --dir in --pol ipsec -j ACCEPT
> > > -A FORWARD -m policy --dir out --pol ipsec -j ACCEPT
> > > COMMIT
> > > # Completed on Mon Oct 14 08:30:14 2019
> > > # Generated by iptables-save v1.6.1 on Mon Oct 14 08:30:14 2019
> > > *nat
> > > :PREROUTING ACCEPT [222978690:20761159044]
> > > :INPUT ACCEPT [1143238:398065963]
> > > :OUTPUT ACCEPT [245876:24207759]
> > > :POSTROUTING ACCEPT [245876:24207759]
> > > -A POSTROUTING -s 10.10.0.0/17 <http://10.10.0.0/17>
> <http://10.10.0.0/17> <http://10.10.0.0/17> -o enp2s0 -m policy --dir out
> --pol ipsec -j ACCEPT
> > > -A POSTROUTING -s 10.10.0.0/17 <http://10.10.0.0/17>
> <http://10.10.0.0/17> <http://10.10.0.0/17> -o enp2s0 -j MASQUERADE
> > > COMMIT
> > > # Completed on Mon Oct 14 08:30:14 2019
> > > # Generated by iptables-save v1.6.1 on Mon Oct 14 08:30:14 2019
> > > *mangle
> > > :PREROUTING ACCEPT [76920955633:50815277695359]
> > > :INPUT ACCEPT [27612054762:8305407205459]
> > > :FORWARD ACCEPT [49298861266:42508240159831]
> > > :OUTPUT ACCEPT [34323442858:39692165780388]
> > > :POSTROUTING ACCEPT [83603096494:82195502934979]
> > > -A FORWARD -s 10.10.0.0/17 <http://10.10.0.0/17>
> <http://10.10.0.0/17> <http://10.10.0.0/17> -o enp2s0 -p tcp -m policy --dir
> in --pol ipsec -m tcp --tcp-flags SYN,RST SYN -m tcpmss --mss 1361:1536 -j
> TCPMSS --set-mss 1360
> > > COMMIT
> > >
> > > On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 at 11:14, Houman <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>>>> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello Noel,
> > >
> > > Thanks for your solution, I just tried it:
> > >
> > > iptables -I FORWARD 2 -m conntrack --ctstate NEW -m hashlimit
> --hashlimit-mode srcip --hashlimit-srcmask 32 --hashlimit-upto 5/s -j ACCEPT
> > >
> > > But I got this error message:
> > >
> > > iptables v1.6.1: hashlimit: option "--hashlimit-name" must be
> specified
> > >
> > > I googled and added the missing name like this:
> > >
> > > iptables -I FORWARD 2 -m conntrack --ctstate NEW -m hashlimit
> --hashlimit-name NETSCAN --hashlimit-mode srcip --hashlimit-srcmask 32
> --hashlimit-upto 5/s -j ACCEPT
> > >
> > > Do you agree with this approach to prevent VPN users from
> running Netscans?
> > >
> > > Many Thanks,
> > > Houman
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 at 14:51, Noel Kuntze
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello Houman,
> > >
> > > A "netscan" attack isn't actually anything worthy of an
> abuse email.
> > > It's not part of a benign usage pattern of a VPN service,
> but it itself isn't illegal or anything.
> > > You can only slow down such scans by rate limiting the
> number of new connections using the hashlimit match module, for example.
> > >
> > > E.g. -A FORWARD -m conntrack --ctstate NEW -m hashlimit
> --hashlimit-mode srcip --hashlimit-srcmask 32 --hashlimit-upto 5/s -j ACCEPT
> > >
> > > Kind regards
> > >
> > > Noel
> > >
> > > Am 30.07.19 um 16:39 schrieb Houman:
> > > > Sorry I mistyped. I meant Netscan.
> > > >
> > > > The abuse message was saying: *NetscanOutLevel: Netscan
> detected from xx.xx.xx.xx*
> > > >
> > > > This is possible though, that VPN users run a netscan
> and scan the ports. Am I correct?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 at 15:30, Thor Simon
> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>>
> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>>>> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I don't think netstat does what you think it does.
> It is a _local_ tool. Perhaps the "abuse notification" you received is a
> phishing attack?
> > > >
> > > > Hae a look at the manual page:
> > > >
> > > >
> http://manpages.ubuntu.com/manpages/trusty/man8/netstat.8.html
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: Houman <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>>> <mailto:[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>>>>>
> > > > Sent: Jul 30, 2019 10:18 AM
> > > > To: [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>> <mailto:[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>>> <mailto:[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>> <mailto:[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>>>>
> > > > Subject: [strongSwan] How to block Netstat attacks
> from VPN users?
> > > >
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > I had an interesting abuse notification that
> someone has run a netstat through our VPN.
> > > >
> > > > > time protocol src_ip src_port
> dest_ip dest_port
> > > > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > Tue Jul 30 13:38:01 2019 UDP 136.243.xxx.xxx
> 21346 => 172.20.10.17 21346
> > > > > Tue Jul 30 13:38:01 2019 UDP 136.243.xxx.xxx
> 21346 => 172.20.10.19 21346
> > > >
> > > > I was wondering if there is a good way to block all
> VPN users from running hacker tools such as netstat (port scanning)
> altogether. Is there a reliable way to do that with iptables?
> > > >
> > > > I came across this snippet that should block port
> scans, but I'm not sure if that would block a VPN user after all since the
> VPN traffic is masqueraded.
> > > >
> > > > iptables -A port-scan -p tcp --tcp-flags
> SYN,ACK,FIN,RST RST -m limit --limit 1/s -j RETURN
> > > > iptables -A port-scan -j DROP --log-level 6
> > > > iptables -A specific-rule-set -p tcp --syn -j
> syn-flood
> > > > iptables -A specific-rule-set -p tcp --tcp-flags
> SYN,ACK,FIN,RST RST -j port-scan
> > > >
> > > > Any suggestions, please?
> > > > Many Thanks,
> > > > Houman
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Noel Kuntze
> > > IT security consultant
> > >
> > > GPG Key ID: 0x0739AD6C
> > > Fingerprint: 3524 93BE B5F7 8E63 1372 AF2D F54E E40B 0739
> AD6C
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Noel Kuntze
> > IT security consultant
> >
> > GPG Key ID: 0x0739AD6C
> > Fingerprint: 3524 93BE B5F7 8E63 1372 AF2D F54E E40B 0739 AD6C
> >
> >
>
> --
> Noel Kuntze
> IT security consultant
>
> GPG Key ID: 0x0739AD6C
> Fingerprint: 3524 93BE B5F7 8E63 1372 AF2D F54E E40B 0739 AD6C
>
>
--
Noel Kuntze
IT security consultant
GPG Key ID: 0x0739AD6C
Fingerprint: 3524 93BE B5F7 8E63 1372 AF2D F54E E40B 0739 AD6C
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
