On 07/04/2012 03:33 AM, Anshuman Aggarwal wrote:
> Hi,
>   I have the following rules to transparently redirect all port 80
> traffic (including that originating on the firewall itself)  to my
> firewall+proxy server while not going into a redirect loop for the
> processes running on the server itself (by excluding using !:group).
> However, a local process running on the server is also seeing its
> traffic redirected to the proxy resulting in a forwarding loop?
>
> Any ideas, or what are the requirements for the exclusion by group?
> REDIRECT        loc             33128   tcp     www     -       !10.0.0.0/28
> REDIRECT        $FW             33128   tcp     www     -
> !10.0.0.0/24    -       !:proxy

When I try that, I don't get a forwarding loop; but it doesn't work and 
I'm seeing this:

Jul  4 07:09:19 gateway fw-net REJECT  IN= OUT=eth1 SRC=70.90.191.121 
DST=127.0.0.1 LEN=60 TOS=00 PREC=0x00 TTL=64 ID=61499 CE DF PROTO=TCP 
SPT=37282 DPT=3128 SEQ=2835240680 ACK=0 WINDOW=5840 SYN URGP=0

Note that it is trying to route packets to the local system 
(DST=127.0.0.1) out of eth1. The ip stack doesn't seem to be re-routing 
the packet after NAT is applied. This is on Debian Squeeze.

-Tom
-- 
Tom Eastep        \ When I die, I want to go like my Grandfather who
Shoreline,         \ died peacefully in his sleep. Not screaming like
Washington, USA     \ all of the passengers in his car
http://shorewall.net \________________________________________________



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and 
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions 
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware 
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
Shorewall-users mailing list
Shorewall-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/shorewall-users

Reply via email to