Re: Understanding if-bound vs floating state policy
Igor Podlesny <[email protected]> Sun, 15 Dec 2019 15:20:38 +0700
| Newsgroups | gmane.os.openbsd.pf |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CACdsUq5m96_cqDqDgHC1O4ziio==f9cmnTS500dtBB67xxGphg@mail.gmail.com> |
On Sun, 15 Dec 2019 at 15:01, Victor Sudakov <[email protected]> wrote: > Igor Podlesny wrote: > > [...] > > > to be honest I don't know at top of my head, what is a good/typical > > > use-case for if-bound state policy. I assume those set-ups must be > > > rare/special. > > > > anti-spoofing. > > > > In case one suspects a spoofing attack can be carried out on some "side" network > > interface(s), leveraging if-bound state option allows to eliminate the threat. > > Isn't "antispoof" for that already? If we're talking about __new__ connections attempts it will work, of course. But we discussed "states" instead so far. Also being attentive enough (obviously) you'll find that "antispoof" __requires__ an interface name to function ("urpf-failed" doesn't but still you'll need to bypass state look-ups for this to be effective) meanwhile "if-bound" can be applied independently. -- End of message. Next message?