From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4D81C68BB0 for ; Fri, 10 Sep 2021 12:51:40 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 3C50F130A1 for ; Fri, 10 Sep 2021 12:51:40 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [94.136.29.106]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 68FD313097 for ; Fri, 10 Sep 2021 12:51:39 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 51B7444515 for ; Fri, 10 Sep 2021 12:43:59 +0200 (CEST) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2021 12:43:28 +0200 From: Fabian =?iso-8859-1?q?Gr=FCnbichler?= To: Proxmox VE development discussion , pve-devel References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: astroid/0.15.0 (https://github.com/astroidmail/astroid) Message-Id: <1631270573.jrcuq0ah6s.astroid@nora.none> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.404 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [proxmox.com] Subject: Re: [pve-devel] hetzner bug with pve-firewall X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2021 10:51:40 -0000 On September 10, 2021 12:31 pm, alexandre derumier wrote: > Hi, >=20 > multiple users have reported problems with hetzner in bridged mode this > week and pve-firewall > https://forum.proxmox.com/threads/proxmox-claiming-mac-address.52601/ > https://forum.proxmox.com/threads/mac-address-abuse-report.95656/ >=20 > Seem that hetzner have bugs or are under attack, but they are flooding > traffic to proxmox nodes with wrong mac/ip destination. >=20 > The problem is that if users use pve-firewall with reject rules, the > RST packet is send with the wrong mac/ip as source, >=20 > and then hertzner is blocking the server of the users .... >=20 >=20 > I'm looking to see if we could add filtering at ebtables level, to drop > wrong mac destination. >=20 > But they are also another problem, if user use DROP as default action, > =C2=A0we have a default REJECT for whois port 53. >=20 > 'PVEFW-Drop' =3D> [ > =C2=A0 =C2=A0# same as shorewall 'Drop', which is equal to DROP, > =C2=A0 =C2=A0# but REJECT/DROP some packages to reduce logging, > =C2=A0 =C2=A0# and ACCEPT critical ICMP types > =C2=A0 =C2=A0{ action =3D> 'PVEFW-reject', proto =3D> 'tcp', dport =3D> '= 43' }, # > REJECT 'auth' >=20 > Does somebody known why we do a reject here ? =C2=A0could it be change to > drop ? https://git.proxmox.com/?p=3Dpve-firewall.git;a=3Dcommit;h=3Dd9e7522b561ce= b323e93affb29c9fced89fed967 would just require a bump + upload