I’ve spent some time searching this question, but I have yet to find a satisfying answer. The majority of answers that I have seen state something along the lines of the following:
- “It’s just good security practice.”
- “You need it if you are running a server.”
- “You need it if you don’t trust the other devices on the network.”
- “You need it if you are not behind a NAT.”
- “You need it if you don’t trust the software running on your computer.”
The only answer that makes any sense to me is #5. #1 leaves a lot to be desired, as it advocates for doing something without thinking about why you’re doing it – it is essentially a non-answer. #2 is strange – why does it matter? If one is hosting a webserver on port 80, for example, they are going to poke a hole in their router’s NAT at port 80 to open that server’s port to the public. What difference does it make to then have another firewall that needs to be port forwarded? #3 is a strange one – what sort of malicious behaviour could even be done to a device with no firewall? If you have no applications listening on any port, then there’s nothing to access. #4 feels like an extension of #3 – only, in this case, it is most likely a larger group that the device is exposed to. #5 is the only one that makes some sense; if you install a program that you do not trust (you don’t know how it works), you don’t want it to be able to readily communicate with the outside world unless you explicitly grant it permission to do so. Such an unknown program could be the door to get into your device, or a spy on your device’s actions.
If anything, a firewall only seems to provide extra precautions against mistakes made by the user, rather than actively preventing bad actors from getting in. People seem to treat it as if it’s acting like the front door to a house, but this analogy doesn’t make much sense to me – without a house (a service listening on a port), what good is a door?
If anything, a firewall only seems to provide extra precautions against mistakes made by the user, rather than actively preventing bad actors from getting in.
You say that like that isn’t providing value. How many services are listening on a port on your system right now? Run ‘ss -ltpu’ and prepare to be surprised.
Security isn’t about “this will make you secure” it’s about layers of protection and probability. It’s a “good practice” because people make mistakes and having a second line of defense helps reduce the odds of a hack.
In the military when learning ORM we called this the “swiss cheese” theory.
The more layers of sliced swiss cheese, the fewer holes that go all the way through.
This question reads a bit to me like someone asking, “Why do trapeze artists perform above nets? If they were good at what they did they shouldn’t fall off and need to be caught.”
Do you really need a firewall? Well, are you intimately familiar with every smidgeon of software on your machine, not just userland ones but also system ones, and you understand perfectly under which and only which circumstances any of them open any ports, and have declared that only the specific ports you want open actually are at every moment in time? Yes? You’re that much of a sysadmin god? Then no, I guess you don’t need a firewall.
If instead you happen to be mortal like the rest of us who don’t read and internalize the behaviors of every piddly program that runs or will ever possibly run on our systems, you can always do what we do for every other problem that is too intensive to do manually: script that shit. Tell the computer explicitly which ports it can and cannot open.
Luckily, you don’t even have to start from scratch with a solution like that. There are prefab programs that are ready to do this for you. They’re called firewalls.
Tell the computer explicitly which ports it can and cannot open.
Isn’t this all rather moot if there is even one open port, though? Say, for example, that you want to mitigate outgoing connections from potential malware that gets installed onto your device. You set a policy to drop all outgoing packets in your firewall; however, you want to still use your device for browsing the web, so you then allow outgoing connections to DNS (UDP, and TCP port 53), HTTP (TCP port 80), and HTTPS (TCP port 443). What if the malware on your device simply pipes its connections through one of those open ports? Is there anything stopping it from siphoning data from your PC to a remote server over HTTP?
The point of the firewall is not to make your computer an impenetrable fortress. It’s to block any implicit port openings you didn’t explicitly ask for.
Say you install a piece of software that, without your knowledge, decides to spin up an SSH server and start listening on port 22. Now you have that port open as a vector for malware to get in, and you are implicitly relying on that software to fend it off. If you instead have a firewall, and port 22 is not one of your allowed ports, the rogue software will hopefully take the hint and not spin up that server.
Generally you only want to open ports for specific processes that you want to transmit or listen on them. Once a port is bound to a process, it’s taken. Malware can’t just latch on without hijacking the program that already has it bound. And if that’s your fear, then you probably have a lot of way scarier theoretical attack vectors to sweat over in addition to this.
Yes, if you just leave a port wide open with nothing bound to it, either via actually having the port reserved or by linking the process to the port with a firewall rule, and you happened to get a piece of actual malware that scanned every port looking for an opening to sneak through, sure, it could. To my understanding, that’s not typically what you’re trying to stop with a firewall.
In some regards a firewall is like a padlock. It keeps out honest criminals. A determined criminal who really wants in will probably circumvent it. But many opportunistic criminals just looking for stuff not nailed down will probably leave it alone. Is the fact that people who know how to pick locks exist an excuse to stop locking things because “it’s all pointless anyway”?
Once a port is bound to a process, it’s taken. Malware can’t just latch on without hijacking the program that already has it bound.
Is this because the kernel assigns that port to that specific process, so that all traffic at that port is associated with only that process? For example, if you have an SSH server listening on 22, and another malicious porgram decides to start listening on 22, all traffic sent to 22 will only be sent to the SSH server, and not the malicious program?
EDIT (2024-01-31T01:20Z): While writing this, I came across this stackoverflow answer, which states that when a socket is created it calls some
bind()function that attaches it to a port. This makes me wonder how difficult it would be for malware to steal the bound port.Is this because the kernel assigns that port to that specific process, so that all traffic at that port is associated with only that process?
Yes, that’s what ports do. They split your IP connection into 65,536 separate communication lines, that’s the main thing, but that is specifically 65,536 1-on-1 lines, not party lines. When a process on your PC reserves port 80, that’s it. It’s taken. Short of hacking the kernel itself, it cannot be reassigned or stolen until the bound process frees it.
The SO answer you found it interesting, I was not aware that the Linux kernel had a feature that allowed two or more processes to willingly share a single port. But the answer explains that this is an opt-in parameter that the first binding process has to explicitly allow. And even then, traffic is not duplicated to all listening processes. It sounds like it’s more of a “first come first serve” to whichever of the processes are free to read the incoming message at the time it arrives, making it more of a load balancing feature that isn’t a useful vector for eavesdropping.
When you expose ports to the Internet. It’s honestly interesting to setup a Web server with the default page on it and see how quickly you get hits on it. You don’t need to register a DNS or be part of an index anywhere. If you open a port (and your router does forward it) then you WILL get scanned for vulnerabilities. It’s like going naked in the forest, you sure can do that but clothes help, even if it’s “just” again ivy or random critters. Now obviously the LONGER you run naked or leave a computer exposed, the most likely you are to get a bad bug.
Can confirm. As an example, I’m developing a game server that runs a raw socket connection over the Telnet port. Within 10 minutes of opening the port, I reliably get requests trying to use Telnet to enable command mode or login as admin. People are constantly scanning.
Ya. And sometimes hosting companies run active scans on customer machines. I get a crazy number of login attempts over ssh. I ❤️ fail2ban
For this specific argument, what difference does it make if that specific device has a firewall in addition to the NAT that it is behind? To expose the device to the internet, a port needs to be openend on the router which points to a specific port on the device. When a request is made to that port, only that port is accessed. Some third party can’t start poking around at other ports on the device, as there is no route from the router.
True but there are also DMZ options that allow to expose an entire machine. I imagine someone who is not familiar with networking or firewalls might “give up” and use that “solution” if they don’t manage to expose just the right port on just the right machine. I’m sure I did that at some point when I was tired of tinkering.
Also if the single port that is exposed has vulnerabilities, then scanning the other ports might not be necessary. If the vulnerability on the opened port allow some kind of access, even without escalating privilege (i.e no root access) maybe localhost queries could be made and from there maybe escalating on another service that wouldn’t be exposed.
Finally on your initial question I’d argue if the firewall rules are equivalent then it would be equivalent but if they are a bit more refined than “just” open or close a port, e.g drop traffic that is not from within the LAN, so a specific subnet, then it might still create risk.
Also if the single port that is exposed has vulnerabilities, then scanning the other ports might not be necessary. If the vulnerability on the opened port allow some kind of access, even without escalating privilege (i.e no root access) maybe localhost queries could be made and from there maybe escalating on another service that wouldn’t be exposed.
For sure, but this is a separate topic. The existence of a firewall is kind of independent of the security of the service listening on the port that it’s expected to listen on. If there is a vulnerability in the service, the existence of a packet filtering firewall most likely won’t be able to do anything to thwart it.
Finally on your initial question I’d argue if the firewall rules are equivalent then it would be equivalent but if they are a bit more refined than “just” open or close a port, e.g drop traffic that is not from within the LAN
Fair point! Still, though, I’m not super convinced of the efficacy of a packet filtering firewall running on a device in preventing malicious connections from itself, were a service running on it to become compromised. The only way that I can see it guaranteeing protection from this scenario is if it drops all packets, but, at that point, it’s just an offline system – no networking – so the issue essentially no longer applies.
#2 is strange – why does it matter?
It doesn’t. If you’re running a laptop with a local web server for development, you wouldn’t want other devices in i.e. the coffee shop WiFi to be able to connect to your (likely insecure) local web server, would you?
If one is hosting a webserver on port 80, for example, they are going to poke a hole in their router’s NAT at port 80 to open that server’s port to the public. What difference does it make to then have another firewall that needs to be port forwarded?
Who is “they”? What about all the other ports?
Imagine a family member visits you and wants internet access in their Windows laptop, so you give them the WiFi password. Do you want that possibly malware infected thing poking around at ports other than 80 running on your server?
Obviously you shouldn’t have insecure things listening there in the fist place but you don’t always get to choose whether some thing you’re hosting is currently secure or not or may not care too much because it’s just on the local network and you didn’t expose it to the internet.
This is what defense in depth is about; making it less likely for something to happen or the attack less potent even if your primary protections have failed.#3 is a strange one – what sort of malicious behaviour could even be done to a device with no firewall? If you have no applications listening on any port, then there’s nothing to access
Mostly addressed by the above but also note that you likely do have applications listening on ports you didn’t know about. Take a look at
sudo ss -utpnl.#5 is the only one that makes some sense; if you install a program that you do not trust (you don’t know how it works), you don’t want it to be able to readily communicate with the outside world unless you explicitly grant it permission to do so. Such an unknown program could be the door to get into your device, or a spy on your device’s actions.
It’s rather the other way around; you don’t want the outside world to be able to talk to untrusted software on your computer. To be a classical “door”, the application must be able to listen to connections.
OTOH, smarter malware can of course be something like a door by requesting intrusion by itself, so outbound filtering is also something you should do with untrusted applications.
People seem to treat it as if it’s acting like the front door to a house, but this analogy doesn’t make much sense to me – without a house (a service listening on a port), what good is a door?
I’d rather liken it to a razor fence around your house, protecting you from thieves even getting near it. Your windows are likely safe from intrusion but they’re known to be fragile. Razor fence can also be cut through but not everyone will have the skill or patience to do so.
If it turned out your window could easily be opened from the outside, you’d rather have razor fence in front until you can replace the window, would you?
If you’re running a laptop with a local web server for development, you wouldn’t want other devices in i.e. the coffee shop WiFi to be able to connect to your (likely insecure) local web server, would you?
This is a fair point that I hadn’t considered for the mobile use-case.
Imagine a family member visits you and wants internet access in their Windows laptop, so you give them the WiFi password. Do you want that possibly malware infected thing poking around at ports other than 80 running on your server?
Fair point!
note that you likely do have applications listening on ports you didn’t know about. Take a look at
sudo ss -utpnl.Interesting! In my case I have a number of sockets from spotify, and steam listening on port 0.0.0.0. I would assume, that these are only available to connections from the LAN?
It’s rather the other way around; you don’t want the outside world to be able to talk to untrusted software on your computer. To be a classical “door”, the application must be able to listen to connections.
OTOH, smarter malware can of course be something like a door by requesting intrusion by itself, so outbound filtering is also something you should do with untrusted applications.
It could also be malicious software that simply makes a request to a remote server – perhaps even siphoning your local data.
If it turned out your window could easily be opened from the outside, you’d rather have razor fence in front until you can replace the window, would you?
Fair point!
In my case I have a number of sockets from spotify, and steam listening on port 0.0.0.0. I would assume, that these are only available to connections from the LAN?
That’s exactly the kind of thing I meant :)
These are likely for things like in-house streaming, LAN game downloads and remote music playing, so you may even want to consider explicitly allowing them through the firewall but they’re also potential security holes of applications running under your user that you have largely no control over.
These are likely for things like in-house streaming, LAN game downloads and remote music playing, so you may even want to consider explicitly allowing them through the firewall
I looked up a few of the ports, and yeah an example of one of them was Steam Remote Play.
Even if you do trust the software running on your computer, did you actually fuzz it for vulnerabilities? Heartbleed could steal your passwords even if you ran ostensibly trustworthy software.
So unless you harden the software and prove it’s completely exploit-free, then you can’t trust it.
Heartbleed could steal your passwords even if you ran ostensibly trustworthy software.
Heartbleed is independent of a firewall though – it’s a protocol vulnerability that was patched into a specific library – this feels somewhat like a strawman argument.
So unless you harden the software and prove it’s completely exploit-free, then you can’t trust it.
The type of “firewall” that I am referring to operates at layer 3/4. From what I understand, you seem to be describing exploits closer to the application layer.
I’m not saying there would be a Heartbleed 2.0 that you need a firewall against
I’m saying unless you read the code you’re running, including the firmware and the kernel, how can you trust there isn’t a remote execution exploit?
At work I showed a trivial remote execution using an upload form. If we didn’t run php, it wouldn’t happen. If the folder had proper
.htaccess, it wouldn’t happen. If we didn’t trust the uploader’s MIME type, it wouldn’t happen.There’s something to be said about defense in depth. Even if you have some kind of a bug or exploit, the firewall just blocking everything might save you.
I’m saying unless you read the code you’re running, including the firmware and the kernel, how can you trust there isn’t a remote execution exploit?
A packet filtering firewall isn’t able to protect against server, or protocol exploits directly. Sure, if you know that connections originating from a specific IP are malicious, then you can drop connections originating from that IP, but it will not be able to direclty protect against application layer exploits.
There do exist application layer firewalls (an example of which was pointed out to me here (opensnitch)), but those are out of the scope of this post.
Firewall for incoming traffic :
-
If you a home user with your computer or laptop inside a LAN you would not really need a firewall, unless you start to use applications which expose its ports to 0.0.0.0 rather than 127.0.0.1 (I believe Redis server software did this a few years ago) and do not trust other users or devices (smart home devices, phones, tablets, modems, switches and so on) inside your LAN.
-
If you are running a server with just a few services, for example ssh, smtp, https, some hosting company people I knew argue that no firewall is needed. I am not sure, my knowledge is lacking.
Application firewalls, watching also outgoing traffic :
If you compare Linux with some other Operating System you will see that on Linux for years an application firewall was non existing. But there is a choice now : opensnitch This can be useful if you run desktop applications that you do not fully trust, or want more control.
If you a home user with your computer or laptop inside a LAN you would not really need a firewall, unless you start to use applications which expose its ports to 0.0.0.0 rather than 127.0.0.1
Interestingly, on one of my devices, running
# ss -utpnlshows quite a number of Spotify, and Steam sockets listening on 0.0.0.0. I looked up some of the ports, and, for example, one of the steam ones was a socket for Remote Play.But there is a choice now : opensnitch
This is really cool! Thank you so much for this recommendation! This pretty much solves what was bugging me about outgoing connections in a layer 3/4 firewall like nftables.
-
When you are attacked. Ok so when are you attacked , as soon as you connect outside. So unless you are air gapped you need a firewall.
Would you mind defining what you mean by “attacked”?
Scanned for vulnerability and exploited if found
I’m not sure if I understand perfectly the scenario that you are describing, but it appears that you are describing a situation in which one has a device behind a NAT that is running a server, which is port forwarded. In this scenario, the attack vector would depend on the security of the server itself, and is essentially independent to the existence of a firewall. One could potentially drop packets based on source IP, or some other metadata, or behaviour that identifies the connections as malicious, but, generally, unless the firewall drops all incoming connections (essentially creating an offline device), a packet filtering firewall will make no difference to thwarting such exploits.
I think it’s better to have one but you probably don’t need multiple layers. When I’m setting up servers nowadays, it’s typically in the cloud and AWS and the like typically have firewalls. So, I don’t really do much on those machines besides change ports to non-standard things. (Like the SSH port should be a random one instead of 22.)
But you should use one if you don’t have an ecosystem where ports can be blocked or forwarded. If nothing else, the constant login attempts from bots will fill up your logs. I disable password logins on web servers and if I don’t change the port, I get a zillion attempts to ssh using “admin” and some common password on port 22. No one gets in but it still requires more compute than just blocking port 22 and making your SSH port something else.
If nothing else, the constant login attempts from bots will fill up your logs.
Yeah, this is defintely a scenario that I hadn’t considerd.
As i see it, the term “firewall” was originally the neat name for an overall security concept for your systems privacy/integrity/security. Thus physical security is (or can be) as well part of a firewall concept as maybe training of users. The keys of your server rooms door could be part of that concept too.
In general you only “need” to secure something that actually is there, you won’t build a safe into the wall and hide it with an old painting without something to put in it or - could be part of the concept - an alarmsensor that triggers when that old painting is moved, thus creating sort of a honeypot.
if and what types of security you want is up to you (so don’t blame others if you made bad decisions).
but as a general rule out of practice i would say it is wise to always have two layers of defence. and always try to prepare for one “error” at a time and try to solve it quickly then.
example: if you want an rsync server on an internet facing machine to only be accessible for some subnets, i would suggest you add iptables rules as tight as possible and also configure the service to reject access from all other than the wanted addresses. also consider monitoring both, maybe using two different approaches: monitor the config to be as defined as well as setup an access-check from one of the unwanted, excluded addresses that fires an alarm when access becomes possible.
this would not only prevent those unwanted access from happening but also prevent accidental opening or breaking of config from happen unnoticed.
here the same, if you want monitoring is also up to you and your concept of security, as is with redundancy.
In general i would suggest to setup an ip filtering “firewall” if you have ip forwarding activated for some reason. a rather tight filtering would maybe only allow what you really need, while DROPping all other requests, but sometimes icmp comes in handy, so maybe you want ping or MTU discovery to actually work. always depends on what you have and how strong you want to protect it from what with what effort. a generic ip filter to only allow outgoing connections on a single workstation may be a good idea as second layer of “defence” in case your router has hidden vendor backdoors that either the vendor sold or someone else simply discovered. Disallowing all that might-be-usable-for-some-users-default-on-protocols like avahi & co in some distros would probably help a bit then.
so there is no generic fault-proof rule of thumb…
to number 5.: what sort of “not trusting” the software? might, has or “will” have: a. security flaws in code b. insecurity by design c. backdoors by gov, vendor or distributor d. spy functionality e. annoying ads as soon as it has internet connection f. all of the above (now guess the likely vendors for this one)
for c d and e one might also want to filter some outgoing connection…
one could also use an ip filtering firewall to keep logs small by disallowing those who obviously have intentions you dislike (fail2ban i.e.)
so maybe create a concept first and ask how to achieve the desired precautions then. or just start with your idea of the firewall and dig into some of the appearing rabbit holes afterwards ;-)
regards
for c d and e one might also want to filter some outgoing connection…
Is there any way to reliably do this in practice? There’s no way of really knowing what outgoing source ports are being used, as they are chosen at random when the connection is made, and if the device is to be practically used at all, some outgoing destination ports must be allowed as well e.g. DNS, HTTP, HTTPS, etc. What other methods are there to filter malicious connections originating from the device using a packet filtering firewall? There is the option of using a layer 7 firewall like OpenSnitch, but, for the purpose of this post, I’m mostly curious about packet filtering firewalls.
one could also use an ip filtering firewall to keep logs small by disallowing those who obviously have intentions you dislike (fail2ban i.e.)
This is a fair point! I hadn’t considered that.
you do not need to know the source ports for filtering outgoing connections.
(i usually use “shorewall” as a nice and handy wrapper around iptables and a “reject everything else policy” when i configured everything as i wanted. so i only occasionally use iptables directly, if my examples dont work, i simply might be wrong with the exact syntax)
something like:
iptables -I OUTPUT -p tcp --dport 22 -j REJECT
should prevent all new tcp connection TO ssh ports on other servers when initiated locally (the forward chain is again another story)
so … one could run an http/s proxy under a specific user account, block all outgoing connections except those of that proxy (i.e. squid) then every program that wants to connect somewhere using direct ip connections would have to use that proxy.
better try this first on a VM on your workstation, not your server in a datacenter:
iptables -I OUTPUT -j REJECT iptables -I OUTPUT -p tcp -m owner --owner squiduser -j ACCEPT
“-I” inserts at the beginning, so that the second -I actually becomes the first rule in that chain allowing tcp for the linux user named “squiduser” while the very next would be the reject everything rule.
here i also assume “squiduser” exists, and hope i recall the syntax for owner match correctly.
then create user accounts within squid for all applications (that support using proxies) with precise acl’s to where (the fqdn’s) these squid-users are allowed to connect to.
there are possibilities to intercept regular tcp/http connections and “force” them to go through the http proxy, but if it comes to https and not-already-known domains the programs would connect to, things become way more complicated (search for “ssl interception”) like the client program/system needs to trust “your own” CA first.
so the concept is to disallow everything by iptables, then allow more finegrained by http proxy where the proxy users would have to authenticate first. this way your weather desktop applet may connect to w.foreca.st if configured, but not e.vili.sh as that would not be included in its users acl.
this setup, would not prevent everything applications could do to connect to the outside world: a local configured email server could probably be abused or even DNS would still be available to evil applications to “transmit” data to their home servers, but thats a different story and abuse of your resolver or forwarder, not the tcp stack then. there exists a library to tunnel tcp streams through dns requests and their answers, a bit creepy, but possible and already prepaired. and only using a http-only proxy does not prevent tcp streams like ssh, i think a simple tcp-through-http-proxy-tunnel software was called “corckscrew” or similar and would go straight through a http proxy but would need the other ond of the tunnel software to be up and running.
much could be abused by malicious software if they get executed on your computer, but in general preventing simple outgoing connections is possible and more or less easy depending on what you want to achieve
should prevent all new tcp connection TO ssh ports on other servers when initiated locally (the forward chain is again another story)
But the point that I was trying to make was that that would then also block you from using SSH. If you want to connect to any external service, you need to open a port for it, and if there’s an open port, then there’s a opening for unintended escape.
so … one could run an http/s proxy under a specific user account, block all outgoing connections except those of that proxy (i.e. squid) then every program that wants to connect somewhere using direct ip connections would have to use that proxy.
I don’t fully understand what this is trying to accomplish.
But the point that I was trying to make was that that would then also block you from using SSH. If you want to connect to any external service, you need to open a port for it, and if there’s an open port, then there’s a opening for unintended escape.
now i have the feeling as if there might be a misunderstanding of what “ports” are and what an “open” port actually is. Or i just dont get what you want. i am not on your server/workstation thus i cannot even try to connect TO an external service “from” your machine. i can do so from MY machine to other machines as i like and if those allow me, but you cannot do anything against that unless that other machine happens to be actually yours (or you own a router that happens to be on my path to where i connect to)
lets try something. your machine A has ssh service running my machine B has ssh and another machine C has ssh.
users on the machines are a b c , the machine letters but in small. what should be possible and what not? like: “a can connect to B using ssh” “a can not connect to C using ssh (forbidden by A)” “a can not connect to C using ssh (forbidden by C)” […]
so what is your scenario? what do you want to prevent?
I don’t fully understand what this is trying to accomplish.
accomplish control (allow/block/report) over who or what on my machine can connect to the outside world (using http/s) and to exactly where, but independant of ip addresses but using domains to allow or deny on a per user/application + domain combonation while not having to update ip based rules that could quickly outdate anyway.
now i have the feeling as if there might be a misunderstanding of what “ports” are and what an “open” port actually is. Or i just dont get what you want. i am not on your server/workstation thus i cannot even try to connect TO an external service “from” your machine.
This is most likely a result of my original post being too vague – which is, of course, entirely my fault. I was intending it to refer to a firewall running on a specific device. For example, a desktop computer with a firewall, which is behind a NAT router.
so what is your scenario? what do you want to prevent?
What is your example in response to? Or perhaps I don’t understand what it is attempting to clarify. I don’t necessarily have any confusion regarding setting up rules for known and discrete connections like SSH.
accomplish control (allow/block/report) over who or what on my machine can connect to the outside world (using http/s) and to exactly where, but independant of ip addresses but using domains to allow or deny on a per user/application + domain combonation while not having to update ip based rules that could quickly outdate anyway.
Are you referring to an application layer firewall like, for example, OpenSnitch?
This is most likely a result of my original post being too vague – which is, of course, entirely my fault.
Never mind, and i got distracted and carried away a bit from your question by the course the messages had taken
What is your example in response to?
i thought it could possibly help clarifying something, sort of it did i guess.
Are you referring to an application layer firewall like, for example, OpenSnitch?
no, i do not conside a proxy like squid to be an “application level firewall” (but i fon’t know opensnitch however), i would just limit outbound connections to some fqdn’s per authenticated client and ensure the connection only goes to where the fqdns actually point to. like an atracker could create a weather applet that “needs” https access to f.oreca.st, but implements a backdoor that silently connects to a static ip using https. with such a proxy, f.oreca.st would be available to the applet, but the other ip not as it is not included in the acl, neither as fqdn nor as an ip. if you like to say this is an application layer firewall ok, but i dont think so, its just a proxy with acls to me that only checks for allowed destination and if the response has some http headers (like 200 ok) but not really more. yet it can make it harder for some attackers to gain the control they are after ;-)
so here are some reasons for having a firewall on a computer, i did not read in the thread (could have missed them) i have already written this but then lost the text again before it was saved :( so here a compact version:
- having a second layer of defence, to prevent some of the direct impact of i.e. supply chain attacks like “upgrading” to an malicously manipulated version.
- control things tightly and report strange behaviour as an early warning sign ‘if’ something happens, no matter if attacks or bugs.
- learn how to tighten security and know better what to do in case you need it some day.
- sleep more comfortable when knowing what you have done or prevented
- compliance to some laws or customers buzzword matching whishes
- the fun to do because you can
- getting in touch with real life side quests, that you would never be aware of if you did not actively practiced by hardening your system.
one side quest example i stumbled upon: imagine an attacker has ccompromised the vendor of a software you use on your machine. this software connects to some port eventually, but pings the target first before doing so (whatever! you say). from time to time the ping does not go to the correct 11.22.33.44 of the service (weather app maybe) but to 0.11.22.33 looks like a bug you say, never mind.
could be something different. pinging an IP that does not exist ensures that the connection tracking of your router keeps the entry until it expires, opening a time window that is much easier to hit even if clocks are a bit out of sync.
also as the attacker knows the IP that gets pinged (but its an outbound connection to an unreachable IP you say what could go wrong?)
lets assume the attacker knows the external IP of your router by other means (i.e. you’ve send an email to the attacker and your freemail provider hands over your external router address to him inside of an email received header, or the manipulated software updates an dyndns address, or the attacker just guesses your router has an address of your providers dial up range, no matter what.)
so the attacker knows when and from where (or what range) you will ping an unreachable IP address in exact what timeframe (the software running from cron, or in user space and pings at exact timeframes to the “buggy” IP address) Then within that timeframe the attacker sends you an icmp unreachable packet to your routers external address, and puts the known buggy IP in the payload as the address that is unreachable. the router machtes the payload of the package, recognizes it is related to the known connection tracking entry and forwards the icmp unreachable to your workstation which in turn gives your application the information that the IP address of the attacker informs you that the buggy IP 0.11.22.33 cannot be reached by him. as the source IP of that packet is the IP of the attacker, that software can then open a TCP connection to that IP on port 443 and follow the instructions the attacker sends to it. Sure the attacker needs that backdoor already to exist and run on your workstation, and to know or guess your external IP address, but the actual behaviour of the software looks like normal, a bit buggy maybe, but there are exactly no informations within the software where the command and control server would be, only that it would respond to the icmp unreachable packet it would eventually receive. all connections are outgoing, but the attacker “connects” to his backdoor on your workstation through your NAT “Firewall” as if it did not exist while hiding the backdoor behind an occasional ping to an address that does not respond, either because the IP does not exist, or because it cannot respond due to DDos attack on the 100% sane IP that actually belongs to the service the App legitimately connects to or to a maintenance window, the provider of the manipulated software officially announces. the attacker just needs the IP to not respond or slooowly to increase the timeframe of connecting to his backdoor on your workstation before your router deletes the connectiin tracking entry of that unlucky ping.
if you don’t understand how that example works, that is absolutely normal and i might be bad in explaining too. thinking out of the box around corners that only sometimes are corners to think around and only under very specific circumstances that could happen by chance, or could be directly or indirectly under control of the attacker while only revealing the attackers location in the exact moment of connection is not an easy task and can really destroy the feeling of achievable security (aka believe to have some “control”) but this is not a common attack vector, only maybe an advanced one.
sometimes side quests can be more “informative” than the main course ;-) so i would put that (“learn more”, not the example above) as the main good reason to install a firewall and other security measures on your pc even if you’ld think you’re okay without it.
I’ve got two services on my computer. One is for email, I want that this port to be open to the public WAN and one is for immich which hosts all my private pictures, I don’t want this port to be public but reachable on LAN. In my router I open the port for email but not for immich. Emal can communicate on LAN and WAN and immich only on LAN. On a foreign, untrusted LAN, like an airport I don’t want other people being able to sniff my immich traffic which is why I have another firewall setting for an untrusted LAN.
This example feels mildly contrived, as it is probably unlikely that one would have an email server running on a mobile device, but I understand your point.
I have another firewall setting for an untrusted LAN
This sounds interesting. Is it possible to implement this with a packet filtering firewall (e.g. nftables)?
Probably
#1 leaves a lot to be desired, as it advocates for doing something without thinking about why you’re doing it – it is essentially a non-answer.
Agreed. That’s mostly BS from people who make commissions from some vendor.
#2 is strange – why does it matter? If one is hosting a webserver on port 80, for example, they are going to poke a hole in their router’s NAT at port 80 to open that server’s port to the public. What difference does it make to then have another firewall that needs to be port forwarded?
A Firewall might be more advanced than just NAT/poking a hole, it may do intrusion detection (whatever that means) and DDoS protection
#3 is a strange one – what sort of malicious behaviour could even be done to a device with no firewall? If you have no applications listening on any port, then there’s nothing to access.
Maybe you’ve a bunch of IoT devices in your network that are sold by a Chinese company or any IoT device (lol) and you don’t want them to be able to access the internet because they’ll establish connections to shady places and might be used to access your network and other devices inside it.
#5 is the only one that makes some sense;
Essentially the same answer and in #3
If we’re talking about your home setup and/or homelab just don’t get a hardware firewall, those are overpriced and won’t add much value. You’re better off by buying an OpenWRT compatible router and ditching your ISP router. OpenWRT does NAT and has a firewall that is easy to manage and setup whatever policies you might need to restrict specific devices. You’ll also be able to setup things such as DoH / DoT for your entire network, setup a quick Wireguard VPN to access your local services from the outside in a safe way and maybe use it to setup a couple of network shares. Much more value for most people, way cheaper.
A Firewall might be more advanced than just NAT/poking a hole, it may do intrusion detection (whatever that means) and DDoS protection
I mean, sure, but the original question of why there’s a need for a second firewall still exists.
Maybe you’ve a bunch of IoT devices in your network that are sold by a Chinese company or any IoT device (lol) and you don’t want them to be able to access the internet because they’ll establish connections to shady places and might be used to access your network and other devices inside it.
This doesn’t really answer the question. The device without a firewall would still be on the same network as the “sketchy IoT devices”. The question wasn’t about whether or not you should have outgoing rules on the router preventing some devices from making contact with the outside world, but instead was about what risk there is to a device that doesn’t have a firewall if it doesn’t have any services listening.
Essentially the same answer and in #3
Somewhat, only I would solve it using an application layer firewall rather than a packet filtering firewall (if it’s even possible to practically solve that with a packet filtering firewall without just dropping all outgoing packets, that is).
just don’t get a hardware firewall
What is the purpose of these devices? Is it because enterprise routers don’t contain a firewall within them, so you need a dedicated device that offers that functionality?
I don’t know what else is there to answer about the purpose of a hardware firewall.
Hardware firewalls have their use cases, mostly overkill for homelabs and most companies but they have specific features you may want that are hard or impossible to get in other ways.
A hardware firewall may do the following things:
- Run DPI and effectively block machines on the network to access certain protocols, websites, hosts or detect whenever some user is about to download malware and block it;
- Run stats and alert sysadmins of suspicious behaviors like a user sending large amount of confidential data to the outside;
- Have “smart” AI features that will detect threats even when they aren’t known yet;
- Provide VPN endpoints and site-to-site connections. This is very common in brands like WatchGuard;
- Higher throughput than your router while doing all the other operations above;
- Better isolation.
An isolated device is the fact that you can then play around with your routers without having to think about the security as much - you may break them, mess some config but you can be sure that the firewall is still in place and doing its job. The firewall becomes both a virtual and a physical and physiological barrier between your network and the outside, there’s less risk of plugging a wire on the wrong spot or a apply a configuration and suddenly having your entire network exposed.
Sure you may be able to setup something on OpenWRT to cover most of the things I listed before but how much time will you spend on that? Will it be as reliable? What about support? A Pi-hole is also another common solution for those problems, and it may work until a specific machines devices to ignore its DNS server and go straight to the router / outside.
You can even argue that you can virtualize something like pfSense or OPNsense on some host that also virtualizes your router and a bunch of other stuff, however, is it wise? Most likely not. Virtualization is mostly secure but we’ve seen cases from time to time where a compromised VM can be used to gain access to the host or other VMs, in this case the firewall could be hacked to access the entirety of your network.
When you’ve to manage larger networks, lets say 50* devices I believe it becomes easier to see how a hardware firewall can become useful. You can’t simply trust all those machines, users and software policies in them to ensure that things are secure.
Have “smart” AI features that will detect threats even when they aren’t known yet;
This is a crazy one – pattern recognition of traffic.
Higher throughput than your router while doing all the other operations above;
Fair point! I hadn’t considered that one.
You can even argue that you can virtualize something like pfSense or OPNsense on some host
This is an intriguing idea. I hadn’t heard of it before.
also virtualizes your router
How would one virtualize a router…? That sounds strange, to say the least.
[virtualized router/firewall] This is an intriguing idea. I hadn’t heard of it before.
- https://forum.opnsense.org/index.php?topic=31809.0
- https://docs.netgate.com/pfsense/en/latest/virtualization/index.html
- https://www.sdxcentral.com/networking/nfv/definitions/whats-network-functions-virtualization-nfv/nfv-elements-overview/whats-a-virtual-router-vrouter/
- https://hometechhacker.com/how-why-i-built-virtual-router/
- https://netshopisp.medium.com/pros-and-cons-of-installing-pfsense-as-virtual-vs-dedicated-server-9e12d39c4cfd
- https://openwrt.org/docs/guide-user/virtualization/qemu
Virtualized routers and firewalls are more common than you might think, specially in large datacenters and other deployments that require a lot of flexibility / SDN.
Other people just like the convenience of having a single machine / mini PC whatever that runs everything from their router/firewall to their NAS and VMs to self-host stuff.
But… at the end of the day virtualization is only mostly secure and we’ve seen cases where a compromised VM can be used to gain access to the host or other VMs, in this case the firewall could be hacked to access the entirety of your network.
You most likely don’t need on device firewall if your in your home network behind a router that has a firewall. If you‘d disable that firewall as well and one of your devices has e.g. SSH activated using username and password, than there is nothing stopping a “hacker” or “script kiddy” from penetrating/spamming your SSH port and brute force your password. The person than can take over your PC and can e.g. install software for his botnet or install keylogger or can overtake your browser session including all authentication cookies or many other bad stuff.
If you are using puplic WiFi, I’d recommend a good on device firewall, or better just use a VPN to get an encrypted tunnel to your home (where you would need to open a port for that tho) and go into the internet from there.
You most likely don’t need on device firewall if your in your home network behind a router that has a firewall.
Under what circumstance(s) would one need a device firewall? If I were to guess, I would say that it is when the internet facing device doesn’t contain a firewall within it (e.g. some enterprise-grade router), so a dedicated firewall device must exist behind it.
You always need it and you actually use it. The smarter question is when you need to customize its settings. Defaults are robust enough, so unless you know what and why you need to change, you don’t.
Defaults are robust enough
Would you mind defining what “defaults” are?
Defaults are the default settings of your firewall (netfilter in linux).
Is netfilter not just the API through which you can make firewall rules (e.g. nftables) for the networking stack?
A couple of decades ago, iirc, SANS.org ( IF I’m remembering who it was who did it ) put a fresh-install of MS-Windows on a machine, & connected it to the internet.
It took SEVERAL MINUTES for it to be broken-into, & corrupted, botnetted.
The auto-attacks by botnets are continuous: hitting different ports, trying to break-in, automatically.
I’ve had linux desktops pwned from me.
the internet should be considered something like a mix of toxic & corrosive chemicals: “maybe” your hand will be fine, if you dip it in for a moment & immediately rinse it off ( for 3 hours ), but if you leave you limbs dwelling in the virulent slop, Bad Things™ are going to happen, sooner-or-later.
I used to de-infest Windows machines for my neighbours…
haven’t done it in years: they’ll not pay-for good anti-virus, they’ll not resist installing malware: therefore there is no point.
Let 'em rot.
I’ve got a life to work-on uncrippling, & too-little strength/time left.
“but I don’t need antivirus: i never get infected!!”
then how come I needed to de-infest it for you??
“but I don’t need an immune-system: pathogens are a hoax!!”
get AIDS, then, & don’t use anti-AIDS drugs, & see how “healthy” you are, 2 years in.
Same argument, different context-mapping.
Tarpit was a wonderful-looking invention, for Linux’s netfilter/iptables, years ago: don’t help botnets scan quickly & efficiently to help them find a way to break-in…
Anyways, just random thoughts from an old geek…
EDIT: “when do I need to wear a seatbelt?”
is essentially the same category of question.
_ /\ _
put a fresh-install of MS-Windows on a machine, & connected it to the internet.
What version of Windows? Connected how? Through a NAT, or was it through a DMZ connection, or netiher? Was Windows’ firewall enabled?
It took SEVERAL MINUTES for it to be broken-into, & corrupted, botnetted.
This is highly dependent on the setup, ofc. I can’t really comment without more knowledge of the experiment.
haven’t done it in years: they’ll not pay-for good anti-virus
Idk, nowadays, 3rd party anti-virus software on Windows doesn’t have too much user – Windows Defender is pretty dang good. If anything, a lot of them are borderline scams, or worse.
get AIDS, then, & don’t use anti-AIDS drugs, & see how “healthy” you are, 2 years in.
You don’t catch AIDS. HIV is the virus which causes AIDS to develop over time, if untreated. I’m not sure what you mean by anti-AIDS drugs. You could potentially be referring to anti-retroviral medication, or other related medication used to treat HIV, but, again that’s treating HIV to prevent the development of AIDS. You could also be referring to PrEP, but, once again, that is for protection against contracting the virus, not the collection of symptoms from a chronic HIV infection which is referred to as AIDS.
Tarpit was a wonderful-looking invention
This is interesting, I hadn’t heard of this!
Linux’s netfilter/iptables
Just a side note: iptables is deprecated – it has been succeeded by nftables.
EDIT: “when do I need to wear a seatbelt?”
is essentially the same category of question.
Fair point!
