Re: prefix len confusion
Randy Bush <[email protected]> Tue, 09 Jun 2026 18:01:33 -0700
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.security.firewalls.netfilter.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
>> tl;dr:
>> o ipv4 ssh dict attacker getting through
>> o i am not an nftables guru; but a few of this have stared at this
>> for many days
>> o do i not understand cidr prefix notation?
>>
>> essentially, i am seeing the traditional ssh dict attcak to
>> 42.642.11.82, when i think i am filtering 42.642.11.80/30, which should
>> cover 42.642.11.82
>
> Getting through to where? If you mean to an instance of sshd(8) that's
> running on the nftables box itself, such is to be expected because you
> have no chain bearing an "input" hook. The input path is currently
> wide open.
>
> It could also be that you're expecting your "forward" chain to cover
> your proxmox guests. But if they are bridged, you may need to perform
> your filtering at layer 2 instead (or also). That would entail
> creating a table in the bridge family.
>
> table bridge filter {
> chain wan-in {
> type filter hook forward priority filter;
> ...
> }
> }
sorry for being insufficiently explicit
the ssh attacker is getting through to 42.642.11.82, which is a piece of
hardware, not a vm. it is the ssh port of a hardware switch whose
security profile i prefer not to expose to attackers.
define VULN4 = {
42.642.11.34/31,
42.642.11.36/31,
42.642.11.40/29,
42.642.11.48/29,
42.642.11.80/30 # <<<====
}
ip daddr $VULN4 drop
and nothing to do with proxmox. that is a separate security boundary
with its own code.
> Incidentally, the iifname "lo" rule serves no purpose in your
> "forward" chain and can safely be removed.
thanks. i am mot sure why/where we invented that. probably some
example.
randy