From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 25BB61FF16F for ; Fri, 15 Nov 2024 14:43:33 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id E68D1147E4; Fri, 15 Nov 2024 14:43:33 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <918ffc4c-c371-4d43-8c2c-849e618273b6@proxmox.com> Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2024 14:43:00 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird From: Stefan Hanreich To: Proxmox VE development discussion , Hannes Laimer References: <20241115123321.49338-1-h.laimer@proxmox.com> <508606c2-8e34-4d6f-b975-a4e96d022b13@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <508606c2-8e34-4d6f-b975-a4e96d022b13@proxmox.com> X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.664 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH] firewall: resources: accept invalid ct state by default 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: , Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pve-devel" On 11/15/24 14:13, Stefan Hanreich wrote: > I see two ways of solving this problem: > > * We introduce a knob at VM level that lets you decide whether to drop > ct invalid traffic or not. (Invalid traffic would then still be > evaluated by the firewall rules if it's allowed in principle, as is the > case on host-level) > > * We apply the host-level setting to VMs as well. The old firewall does it like this - so maybe we should do it here as well: * drop invalid traffic in PVEFW-HOST-IN (= INPUT chain) irregardless of the setting * drop invalid traffic on PVEFW-FORWARD (= FORWARD chain) if allow_invalid is 0 (= default) It's important not to accept it immediately, because then the rest of the ruleset still gets evaluated, mitigating the blast radius of this setting considerably. _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel