Nobody?  Sad, it's still doing it.


On Sun, Oct 21, 2007 at 02:22:43PM -0500, david l goodrich wrote:
quoted text
> I've set up a max-src-conn-rate rule on my gateway router to
> mitigate brute-force ssh attacks.  This router protects a /28
> subnet, 25.108.82.80/28.
>
> The relevant rules:
>
> # pfctl -sr | grep attack
> block drop in log quick proto tcp from <sshd_attackers> to any
> pass in log proto tcp from any to any port = ssh keep state
> (source-track rule, max-src-conn-rate 3/30, overload
> <sshd_attackers> flush global, src.track 30)
> #
>
> What the three columns of output in the below tcpdump output are:
> timestamp, rule action, and target host.  As you can tell from
> the tcpdump command, the sending host is the same in all cases,
> 208.53.147.204
>
> # tcpdump -enr /var/log/pflog host 208.53.147.204 \
> >       | awk '{print ,,}' | sed s/.22:// | head -30
> reading from file /var/log/pflog, link-type PFLOG (OpenBSD pflog file)
> 12:09:45.849594 pass 25.103.82.80
> 12:09:45.850279 pass 25.103.82.82
> 12:09:45.850827 pass 25.103.82.83
> 12:09:45.851310 pass 25.103.82.84
> 12:09:45.852003 pass 25.103.82.85
> 12:09:45.852496 pass 25.103.82.86
> 12:09:45.853007 pass 25.103.82.87
> 12:09:45.866580 pass 25.103.82.88
> 12:09:45.867345 pass 25.103.82.89
> 12:09:45.868339 pass 25.103.82.92
> 12:09:45.902389 pass 25.103.82.95
> 12:25:52.632295 pass 25.103.82.80
> 12:25:52.632973 pass 25.103.82.82
> 12:25:52.648804 pass 25.103.82.83
> 12:25:52.684792 pass 25.103.82.84
> 12:25:52.687989 pass 25.103.82.85
> 12:25:52.688652 pass 25.103.82.86
> 12:25:52.690882 pass 25.103.82.87
> 12:25:52.691371 pass 25.103.82.88
> 12:25:52.692290 pass 25.103.82.89
> 12:25:52.695340 pass 25.103.82.92
> 12:25:52.698864 pass 25.103.82.95
> 13:08:36.949178 pass 25.103.82.87
> 13:08:38.864585 pass 25.103.82.87
> 13:08:40.452215 pass 25.103.82.87
> 13:08:42.038388 pass 25.103.82.87
> 13:08:46.923469 block 25.103.82.88
> 13:08:49.922116 block 25.103.82.88
> 13:08:50.212040 block 25.103.82.87
> 13:08:51.099435 block 25.103.82.87
> #
>
> It seems to me like this host should have been blocked back at
> 12:09:45, not 13:08:46.  Am I misunderstanding the rule?
>   --david
>
> [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which
had a name of signature.asc]

[demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]