Gentoo Archives: gentoo-user

From: Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-user@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Something firewall-ish
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 07:08:39
Message-Id: 548FDA4B.6070100@gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-user] Something firewall-ish by meino.cramer@gmx.de
1 On 16/12/2014 06:02, meino.cramer@×××.de wrote:
2 >
3 >
4 > Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com> [14-12-16 03:43]:
5 >> On 15/12/2014 18:47, meino.cramer@×××.de wrote:
6 >>> Hi,
7 >>>
8 >>> this question is not related to a fully fledged,
9 >>> big local area network with DMZs and such.
10 >>>
11 >>> Even the word "firewall" seems to be a little too
12 >>> "huge and mighty" in this context to me.
13 >>>
14 >>> "The network" consists of a PC, which is connected
15 >>> to a FritzBox (cable, no Wifi/WLAN), which connects
16 >>> to the ISP (internet) and (same adress range) to a
17 >>> embedded system (eth1)
18 >>>
19 >>> There are two additional embedded systems, both on
20 >>> a separate interface (eth over usb: usb0 & usb1).
21 >>>
22 >>> I want to block (DROP or REJECT) the access to certain
23 >>> sites (the "noise" which is produced mostly by sites,
24 >>> which all exclusively "only want my best": ads, trackers, analysts
25 >>> and so on...)
26 >>>
27 >>> I tried different tools: fwbuilder, which locks up either itsself
28 >>> or my rulesset...I had to reboot and Shorewall, which definitely
29 >>> is a great tool....a little too great tool and much more capable
30 >>> as I am... ;)
31 >>>
32 >>> I am sure that the problems are mostly not the problems of the
33 >>> tools but mine.
34 >>>
35 >>> Is there any simple straight forward tool to just block accesses
36 >>> to certain sites?
37 >>
38 >>
39 >>
40 >> to do it network-wide: squid
41 >>
42 >> to do it on a per-pc per-browser basis: there's a large variety of
43 >> firefox plugins to chose from that will block this and allow that. It
44 >> seems to me this is the better approach as you want to stop your browser
45 >> chatting with sites who only have your best interest at heart :-)
46 >>
47 >>
48 >> Either way, the list of black and white lists gets very big very quick,
49 >> so chose your tool carefully. Try a bunch and pick one that makes sense
50 >> to you, bonus points if it comes with a community-supported blacklist
51 >> you can drop in, maintained by people whose POV matches your own.
52 >>
53 >> You don't want a classic firewall for this; firewalls are mostly built
54 >> to block based on address and port, this is not how you solve your problem
55 >>
56 >> --
57 >> Alan McKinnon
58 >> alan.mckinnon@×××××.com
59 >>
60 >
61 > Hi Alan,
62 >
63 > thanks for reply! :)
64 >
65 > actually the thing is: There is a plugin called "NoScript" which
66 > constantly accesses secure.informaction.com, which is the author
67 > of this plugin.
68 > I tried a lot to block that access from inside firefox but did
69 > not find a way to do so (read: _I_ did not find... ;)
70 >
71 > If you know a plugin for firefox which is able to block accesses
72 > from all other plugins to certain sites of the internet I would
73 > be happy to check that out.
74
75 I don't know of a plugin that specifically does that; I do know that
76 there are Firefox plugins for just about anything you could imagine,
77 that's why I made the suggestion
78
79
80 >
81 > I tried to block the accesses via iptable rules which DROP/REJECT
82 > the name and the IP-address of that site...no chance.
83 >
84 > The IP has not changed of that site...
85 >
86 > Wireshark still reports traffic to and from that site and following
87 > the TCP stream with wireshark shows, that the traffic has encrypted
88 > contents.
89
90 That indicates something wrong with your iptables rules.
91
92 iptables works at the lowest level of the network stack (very little if
93 anything can bypass it) and wireshark works by reading the network
94 interface directly in promiscuous mode. The traffic you see probably
95 doesn't have a iptables rule to catch it. There are 4 addresses for that
96 domain name, did you incluce them all in the rule?
97
98 # dig secure.informaction.com +short
99 82.103.140.42
100 82.103.140.40
101 69.195.141.179
102 69.195.141.178
103
104
105
106 >
107 > The other access, which origin I haven't located exactly yet (its
108 > origin is in firefox (a plugin I think), is to
109 > s3-1.amazonaws.com.
110 > I also want to block this.
111 >
112 > Please what is the plugin of the large variety of plugins, which is
113 > able to block access of all other plugins to customer defined sites?
114
115 As I said above, I don't track plugins too closely, so I don't know.
116 But someone else on this list will, lots of knowledgeable people around
117 here :-)
118
119
120
121
122 --
123 Alan McKinnon
124 alan.mckinnon@×××××.com