Re: outgoing SYN blocked even if it is allowed by ipf.rules

This is a discussion on Re: outgoing SYN blocked even if it is allowed by ipf.rules within the IPFilter forums, part of the System Security and Security Related category; --ZfOjI3PrQbgiZnxM Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Jul 26, ...


Go Back   Usenet Forums > System Security and Security Related > IPFilter

FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 07-26-2007
Phil Dibowitz
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: outgoing SYN blocked even if it is allowed by ipf.rules


--ZfOjI3PrQbgiZnxM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 07:35:38AM +0200, Matthias Apitz wrote:
> Hello Carson,
>=20
> Thanks for pointing that out; I did not realized the 'ack' flag and was
> only focused on the 'S'; it is now clear why the pkg can not pass the
> IPF firewall;
>=20
> but it remains a question; I collected all the traffic for the IP
> 10.0.1.40 and this is what was captured:
>
> Why 10.0.1.40 sends out a SYN to the remote side having 'ack' turned on
> and having set the destination port to n+1 of the source port of the
> established connection? Do you have an idea about?


Where do you see that? Source port is 3232 in the first packet:

> 13:30:07.989088 IP xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx.3232 > 10.0.1.40.1720: S 356680283:356=

680283(0) win 8192 <mss 1460>

And the destination is 3232 it the second packet:

> 13:30:07.994005 IP 10.0.1.40.1720 > xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx.3232: S 85446234:8544=

6234(0) ack 356680284 win 23360 <mss 536>

Those match. There's no "+1".

As to your question about "ack", that's how TCP works - you respond a SYN w=
ith
a SYN+ACK. That's the 2nd step of the 3-way handshake - syn, syn+ack, ack.
Here's the ack:

> 13:30:08.153383 IP xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx.3232 > 10.0.1.40.1720: . ack 1 win 8192


This is a normal TCP handshake.

Though the fact that one side has an mss of 536 is very odd. However, it
doesn't seem to be causing any problem (other than the inefficiency of such
small packets).

--=20
Phil Dibowitz phil@ipom.com
Open Source software and tech docs Insanity Palace of Metallica
http://www.phildev.net/ http://www.ipom.com/

"Never write it in C if you can do it in 'awk';
Never do it in 'awk' if 'sed' can handle it;
Never use 'sed' when 'tr' can do the job;
Never invoke 'tr' when 'cat' is sufficient;
Avoid using 'cat' whenever possible" -- Taylor's Laws of Programming


--ZfOjI3PrQbgiZnxM
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGqDZIN5XoxaHnMrsRAsWLAJ0QCKfRZ6c4354HZIMigB PdMPY4fwCgp954
uH9f7t/KYrAbhZK/CW1n0O8=
=tx9B
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--ZfOjI3PrQbgiZnxM--
Reply With Quote
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.0.0