From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9])
	by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 25BB61FF16F
	for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; 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 <s.hanreich@proxmox.com>
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
 Hannes Laimer <h.laimer@proxmox.com>
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 <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>, 
 <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>, 
 <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com
Sender: "pve-devel" <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>

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