tolive
join:2006-10-17
Silver Spring, MD | USG50 Firewall Setting Question I set up the above firewall rule trying to block internet access from all my home PCs during a defined schedule, while it does block most internet access, I found that the firewall rule doesn't block certain type of instant messenger (specifically, the "QQ" which is the most popular instant messenger in China), what's wrong with my rule settings? |
|
 AnavSarcastic Llama? Naw, Just AcerbicPremium
join:2001-07-16
Dartmouth, NS
kudos:3 | well I would kinda reverse your rule.
I would state it as LAN to WAN block.
If there was a particular PC by IP that you wanted to keep access just put an allow rule for that IP before the deny rule.
I am not sure what happens in the case someone has a session ongoing through the time period however (when it goes from allowed to blocked).
--
Ain't nuthin but the blues! "Albert Collins".
Leave your troubles at the door! "Pepe Peregil" De Sevilla. Just Don't Wifi without WPA, "Yul Brenner"
LlamaWorks Equipment |
|
tolive
join:2006-10-17
Silver Spring, MD | Thanks!
For this specific rule, is there any difference between Any->WAN and LAN->WAN? My understanding was that the rule should have blocked all internet traffic (unless I have any allow rule set before it).
said by Anav:well I would kinda reverse your rule.
I would state it as LAN to WAN block.
If there was a particular PC by IP that you wanted to keep access just put an allow rule for that IP before the deny rule.
I am not sure what happens in the case someone has a session ongoing through the time period however (when it goes from allowed to blocked).
|
|
 BranoI hate VogonsPremium,MVM
join:2002-06-25
Burlington, ON
kudos:6
1 edit | The problem is most likely with already established sessions when the rule is activated. This is known issue that some existing sessions don't get killed right away (conclusive testing and proof required). |
|
| said by Brano:The problem is most likely with already established sessions when the rule is activated. This is known issue that some existing sessions don't get killed right away (conclusive testing and proof required).
It should work at the time you apply.
Anyway, sometimes it fails ... |
|
| reply to Brano
said by Brano:The problem is most likely with already established sessions when the rule is activated. This is known issue that some existing sessions don't get killed right away (conclusive testing and proof required).
I see that with the schedule I have set up to cut off my kids internet access at night. Existing games, etc. continue to work just fine as long as the connection to the remote server was established before the scheduled firewall rule kicks in. |
|
BranoI hate VogonsPremium,MVM
join:2002-06-25
Burlington, ON
kudos:6 Reviews:
 ·Bell Fibe
2 edits | Yep, I've just tried it myself and the FW rules don't seem to be applied to existing sessions. Only new ones.
...I've read through CLI hoping there would be a switch to allow killing all active sessions from / to specified zones but there seems to be none.
Just realized we've had this discussion already here »USG100 - Weird (and frightening) firewall behavior
The problem is non-trivial, the perfect solution would be to have "flush existing session table" command (or similar). ... but I can't find any.
Reboot or disabling/enabling the WAN interface seems to be the ugly alternative (the interface disable/enable could be scripted and scheduled (I've not tested this)) |
|
