Mailing List Archive

1 2  View All
Re: Blocking a Class C [ In reply to ]
On Fri, Dec 9, 2022 at 9:47 AM The Doctor via Exim-users <
exim-users@exim.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 08, 2022 at 08:42:46PM +0000, Slavko via Exim-users wrote:
> > D??a 8. decembra 2022 14:33:01 UTC pou????vate?? Jeremy Harris via
> Exim-users <exim-users@exim.org> nap??sal:
> >
> > >For those, use the main-config option "host_reject_connection" rather
> than the
> > >connect ACL - it operates before the TLS startup for TLS-on-connect
> ports,
> > >while the ACL is run after.
> > >
> > >I'm considering changing that, even though it's an incompatible change.
> > >Having the ACL operate before TLS startup (for TLS-on-connect) would
> align
> > >with the operation for STARTTLS, and possibly cause less surprise.
> >
> > >Anybody want to comment?
> >
> > Yes, i want, if i can, as i know nothing about exim's internals and very
> > little about TLS, and if my English allow me it ;-)
> >
> > If i properly understand you, you want to move current "connect" ACL
> > to be handled before TLS handshake happens. I see that problematic,
> > not by implementation (i know nothing about it), but with results:
> >
> > We was talk about this some time ago on IRC, if you remember... You
> > mentioned, that currently the "host_reject_connection" returns to client
> > plaintext response... I understand, that this is "historic", but Ii hope
> that
> > you will agree, that this is wrong, at least because clients will not
> > expect plaintext on encrypted connection. Yes, we can consider
> > those rejected at connect stage as bad and ignore them. But despite
> > this, we have to respond correctly, as we have to considef misconfigured
> > clients rather than malicious. Plain response is OK before STARTTLS
> > was issued, but with TLS-on-connect connection we have either
> > silently close connection or issue some TLS error. I do not know what
> > is proper to reject TLS handshake, but i hope that here are people
> > who know. Or, we can inspire eg. from nginx's solution of rejecting TLS
> > handshake (BTW, openssl s_client returns it as "alert number 112").
> >
> > Thus, we have to distinguish connection type (plain/TLS) to choose
> > appropriate rejection. IMO, better can be to add separate ACL, which
> > will be called before current connect ACL, but only on TLS-on-connect
> > ports. Its semantic have to be simmilar to connect ACL, but with defer
> > either not allowed or treated the same as deny/drop. Simillar with
> > the message modiffier (ignore/not allow). If i can, i will vote for
> > allowing both.
> >
> > Another reason to separate them is, that eg. SNI name and some
> > other properties are not available before TLS handshake is finished.
> > Yes, it can be checked latter, but checking at connect stage can
> > save some possibly not cheap queries in latter ACLs. Checking
> > SNI in current connect ACL is very effective...
> >
> > One thing, which is not clear for me, is what you mean by
> > "align with the operation for STARTTLS", i hope that it is not
> > what i understand ;-)
> >
> > And when we are talking about TLS, i consider as useful to allow
> > encrypted condition in both, the connect and helo ACLs, to one
> > can distinguish encrypted connections there (now one have to check
> > eg. $tls_in_cipher variable). Please, can it be added?
> >
> > regards
> >
>
> Looks like a fix for 4.97 .
>
> I still wonder why the FReeBSD porters never went up to 4.96?
>

You can always do a manual compile/ install. That is what I do.


--
Best regards,
Odhiambo WASHINGTON,
Nairobi,KE
+254 7 3200 0004/+254 7 2274 3223
"Oh, the cruft.", egrep -v '^$|^.*#' ¯\_(?)_/¯ :-)
--
## List details at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/
## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
Re: Blocking a Class C [ In reply to ]
I am sorry for delay...

D?a 8. decembra 2022 21:37:32 UTC používate? Jeremy Harris via Exim-users <exim-users@exim.org> napísal:

>We could just drop the connection at the TCP level, silently; that wouldn't
>be hard to code. I don't think it'd make any difference to a client
>that didn't have a human peering at a packet capture of the connection
>attempt.

Drop silently is what i suggested and have "human" on remote side is
IMO expected on SubmissionS connections.

>"unrecognized name" ?

Yes, perhaps not good example, as that was TLS handshake rejected
from name base virtual server, there are other names which responds
to HTTPS in it... I have not opposite example -- rejecting by default, but
accepting on some names.

>71 insufficient_security might work

I cannnot comment, my knowledge is not enough, but looks OK.

>But sending anything complex enough to need the TLS library sounds like
>too much hard work. I don't think either supported library provides
>a simple way of "start the handshake and intentionally cancel it".

While i do not know how it is implemented in library, i will guess that
there is something, at least in OpenSSL. I remember that i read some
bugreport in nginx with that TLS handshake rejection and there was
mentioned some problem inside library too (both solved now), but i
never really wrote in C, nor directly used OpenSSL lib, thus i didn't read
details carefuly. I have no links noted...

>Not so. It's available early and can be used to select the server cert.

AFAIK SNI is part of TLS Client Hello. For now i understand that we
are talking about rejection before TLS handshake starts, thus no
SNI is available (nor other TLS related variables). Are you talking
about rejection in "middle" of TLS handshake or even after it is
finished?

>> One thing, which is not clear for me, is what you mean by
>> "align with the operation for STARTTLS", i hope that it is not
>> what i understand ;-)
>
>By "align" I mean "operates before TLS startup".

I was understanding that as common ACL for both, now it is clear.

>There is an "encrypted=" ACL condition. Or you can check $tls_in_cipher,
>as you said - it's fully equivalent.

When i recently tried to use "encrypted=" ACL condition in helo ACL
i got error, thus while fully equivalent, they are not interchangable
in all related ACLs and it was not documented.

regards


--
Slavko
https://www.slavino.sk/

--
## List details at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/
## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
Re: Blocking a Class C [ In reply to ]
On 10/12/2022 16:27, Slavko via Exim-users wrote:
> D?a 8. decembra 2022 21:37:32 UTC používate? Jeremy Harris via Exim-users <exim-users@exim.org> napísal:
>
>> We could just drop the connection at the TCP level, silently; that wouldn't
>> be hard to code. I don't think it'd make any difference to a client
>> that didn't have a human peering at a packet capture of the connection
>> attempt.
>
> Drop silently is what i suggested

I've gone with "silently": 4243a209fd94



[SNI]
>> Not so. It's available early and can be used to select the server cert.
>
> AFAIK SNI is part of TLS Client Hello. For now i understand that we
> are talking about rejection before TLS handshake starts, thus no
> SNI is available (nor other TLS related variables). Are you talking
> about rejection in "middle" of TLS handshake or even after it is
> finished?

Yes, for SNI it have to be after the first bit of the TLS startup
exchange.


>> There is an "encrypted=" ACL condition. Or you can check $tls_in_cipher,
>> as you said - it's fully equivalent.
>
> When i recently tried to use "encrypted=" ACL condition in helo ACL
> i got error, thus while fully equivalent, they are not interchangable
> in all related ACLs and it was not documented.
Details on that, please?
--
Cheers,
Jeremy


--
## List details at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/
## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
Re: Blocking a Class C [ In reply to ]
D?a 10. decembra 2022 17:01:52 UTC používate? Jeremy Harris via Exim-users <exim-users@exim.org> napísal:

>Yes, for SNI it have to be after the first bit of the TLS startup
>exchange.

Now i am confused. I read that commit (docs changes), but it
is not clear for me, will have $tls_in_* variables values in
connect ACL? I guess that no, but if so, please can you mention
that somewhere?

I am using the SNI variable in connect ACL, to filter rogue
connections eg. with my MX name or no SNI at all (465). They
are not often, but happens and when SNI will be not set, all
my clients will be filled to firewall...

Also, you previously mention using not valid certificate for wrong
SNI name to get TLS failed (or so). It is not clear for me if you mean
certificate with not valid name or file which is not certificate (eg.
/dev/null). IMO bruteforcers doesn't care about valid certificate,
thus using not valid certificate will confuse only legitime clients.

When i did mistake in cert/key lookup expansion some time, exim
log it loudly (but it was nonexistent file)... If i rember properly, docs
exatly mentions to use "default" certificate/key for no/invalid SNI...

Please, can you elaborate more what you mean by that? + some
example if appropriate.

>> When i recently tried to use "encrypted=" ACL condition in helo ACL
>> i got error, thus while fully equivalent, they are not interchangable
>> in all related ACLs and it was not documented.
>Details on that, please?

With exim 4.94.2 i can use "encrypted=" ACL condition in connect ACL,
but not in helo ACL, tested with -bh:

>>> using ACL "acl_check_helo"
>>> processing "warn" (/var/lib/exim4/config.autogenerated 1065)
>>> check !encrypted = *
>>> warn: condition test error in ACL "acl_check_helo"

Result is 451 (Temporary local problem - please try later) with log:

LOG: ... temporarily rejected EHLO or HELO ...:
cannot test encrypted condition in EHLO or HELO ACL

regards

--
Slavko
https://www.slavino.sk/

--
## List details at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/
## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
Re: Blocking a Class C [ In reply to ]
On 10/12/2022 20:13, Slavko via Exim-users wrote:
> D?a 10. decembra 2022 17:01:52 UTC používate? Jeremy Harris via Exim-users <exim-users@exim.org> napísal:
>
>> Yes, for SNI it have to be after the first bit of the TLS startup
>> exchange.
>
> Now i am confused. I read that commit (docs changes), but it
> is not clear for me, will have $tls_in_* variables values in
> connect ACL? I guess that no, but if so, please can you mention
> that somewhere?

No; since the TLS startup has not been done, the TLS client Hello
has not yet ben seen by the TLS library and Exim has had no
opportunity to fill in $tls_in_*

> I am using the SNI variable in connect ACL, to filter rogue
> connections eg. with my MX name or no SNI at all (465).

Doing that never would have worked for non- TLS-on-connect,
and now it won't work ever. Your 465 operations will need
rethinking in this respect.


> Also, you previously mention using not valid certificate for wrong
> SNI name to get TLS failed (or so). It is not clear for me if you mean
> certificate with not valid name or file which is not certificate (eg.
> /dev/null).

The latter. Logged error messsages become a little abstruse, but
it does what's needed (the TLS startup fails).


> Please, can you elaborate more what you mean by that? + some
> example if appropriate.

tls_certificate = ${if eq {$tls_in_sni}{disliked_sni} {/dev/null} {my_good_certfile}}


>>> When i recently tried to use "encrypted=" ACL condition in helo ACL
>>> i got error, thus while fully equivalent, they are not interchangable
>>> in all related ACLs and it was not documented.

> LOG: ... temporarily rejected EHLO or HELO ...:
> cannot test encrypted condition in EHLO or HELO ACL

Ah, ok. There has always been a specific lockout against trying
to use that ACL condition in that circumstance, because it make no
sense for STARTTLS. And TLS-on-connect wasn't thought of.

Sorry to have misled you.

--
Cheers,
Jeremy


--
## List details at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/
## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
Re: Blocking a Class C [ In reply to ]
D?a 11. decembra 2022 17:15:10 UTC používate? Jeremy Harris via Exim-users <exim-users@exim.org> napísal:

>> I am using the SNI variable in connect ACL, to filter rogue
>> connections eg. with my MX name or no SNI at all (465).
>
>Doing that never would have worked for non- TLS-on-connect,
>and now it won't work ever. Your 465 operations will need
>rethinking in this respect.

I am aware of that and i was talking about 465 connections
of course. (BTW, i don't expose 587 MSA's port to public at all for
multiple years)

>> Also, you previously mention using not valid certificate for wrong
>> SNI name to get TLS failed (or so). It is not clear for me if you mean
>> certificate with not valid name or file which is not certificate (eg.
>> /dev/null).
>
>The latter. Logged error messsages become a little abstruse, but
>it does what's needed (the TLS startup fails).

Thanks, i will play with this and return to it (if needed) in future.

>> LOG: ... temporarily rejected EHLO or HELO ...:
>> cannot test encrypted condition in EHLO or HELO ACL
>
>Ah, ok. There has always been a specific lockout against trying
>to use that ACL condition in that circumstance, because it make no
>sense for STARTTLS. And TLS-on-connect wasn't thought of.

In case of STARTTLS, it makes no sense for me in connect ACL,
but there it works. In helo ACL it makes sense for me, eg. to skip
checks for second EHLO (after STARTTLS), especially with the
same HELO (EHLO) name as before. What i miss here?

>Sorry to have misled you.

No problem, at least i test, that it still works as i described ;-)

regards


--
Slavko
https://www.slavino.sk/

--
## List details at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/
## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
Re: Blocking a Class C [ In reply to ]
On 11/12/2022 18:34, Slavko via Exim-users wrote:
> In case of STARTTLS, it makes no sense for me in connect ACL,
> but there it works. In helo ACL it makes sense for me, eg. to skip
> checks for second EHLO (after STARTTLS), especially with the
> same HELO (EHLO) name as before. What i miss here?

Fair point. On the history I have available, the HELO acl lockout
for the encrypted condition was added between version 4.14 and 4.20,
which is also when acl_smtp_helo arrived (from the ChangeLog file,
there do not have been any intermediate versions released).

The latter was in April 2003. There isn't any commentary for the
rationale for the lockout; the docs do say "called for HELO or EHLO"
for the ACL. Perhaps just the EHLO after STARTTLS was forgotten.

I'm tempted to remove the restriction.
--
Cheers,
Jeremy


--
## List details at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/
## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
Re: Blocking a Class C [ In reply to ]
D?a 12. decembra 2022 23:25:53 UTC používate? Jeremy Harris via Exim-users <exim-users@exim.org> napísal:

>The latter was in April 2003. There isn't any commentary for the
>rationale for the lockout; the docs do say "called for HELO or EHLO"
>for the ACL. Perhaps just the EHLO after STARTTLS was forgotten.

Perhaps, i didn't work with email in that time, but i will guess, that
STARTTLS was not as common in that time as now (as in many
other protocols).

>I'm tempted to remove the restriction.

I will appreciate this, thanks

regards


--
Slavko
https://www.slavino.sk/

--
## List details at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/
## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
Re: Blocking a Class C [ In reply to ]
On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 05:06:51PM +0000, Slavko via Exim-users wrote:
> D??a 12. decembra 2022 23:25:53 UTC pou????vate?? Jeremy Harris via Exim-users <exim-users@exim.org> nap??sal:
>
> >The latter was in April 2003. There isn't any commentary for the
> >rationale for the lockout; the docs do say "called for HELO or EHLO"
> >for the ACL. Perhaps just the EHLO after STARTTLS was forgotten.
>
> Perhaps, i didn't work with email in that time, but i will guess, that
> STARTTLS was not as common in that time as now (as in many
> other protocols).
>
> >I'm tempted to remove the restriction.
>
> I will appreciate this, thanks
>
> regards
>

For 4.97 .

>
> --
> Slavko
> https://www.slavino.sk/
>
> --
> ## List details at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
> ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/
> ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/

--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b
Happy Christmas 2022 and Merry New Year 2023 Beware https://mindspring.com

--
## List details at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/
## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
Re: Blocking a Class C [ In reply to ]
Still having problems with

/var/log/exim/in_rejectlog:2023-01-18 14:27:01.484 [97258] refused connection from [46.148.40.108]:61402 I=[204.209.81.246]:465 (host_reject_connection)

THere are still coming and not being dropped in a timely manner.

can these packets be dropped in less than 0.01 ms?

Legit e-mail is not getting through and costumers are complaining.


You can check https://www.nk.ca/eximstats.html OR

https://www.nk.ca/eximstats-YYYY-MM-DD.html

for more information.

--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b
Birthdate: 29 Jan 1969 Redhill, Surrey, England Beware https://mindspring.com

--
## List details at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/
## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
Re: Blocking a Class C [ In reply to ]
Block at the firewall before they reach the server.

On Thu, Jan 19, 2023, 00:33 The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:

> Still having problems with
>
> /var/log/exim/in_rejectlog:2023-01-18 14:27:01.484 [97258] refused
> connection from [46.148.40.108]:61402 I=[204.209.81.246]:465
> (host_reject_connection)
>
> THere are still coming and not being dropped in a timely manner.
>
> can these packets be dropped in less than 0.01 ms?
>
> Legit e-mail is not getting through and costumers are complaining.
>
>
> You can check https://www.nk.ca/eximstats.html OR
>
> https://www.nk.ca/eximstats-YYYY-MM-DD.html
>
> for more information.
>
> --
> Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
> Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist
> rising!
> Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
> https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b
> Birthdate: 29 Jan 1969 Redhill, Surrey, England Beware
> https://mindspring.com
>
--
## List details at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/
## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
Re: Blocking a Class C [ In reply to ]
On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 12:36:38AM +0300, Odhiambo Washington via Exim-users wrote:
> Block at the firewall before they reach the server.
>
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2023, 00:33 The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>
> > Still having problems with
> >
> > /var/log/exim/in_rejectlog:2023-01-18 14:27:01.484 [97258] refused
> > connection from [46.148.40.108]:61402 I=[204.209.81.246]:465
> > (host_reject_connection)
> >
> > THere are still coming and not being dropped in a timely manner.
> >
> > can these packets be dropped in less than 0.01 ms?
> >
> > Legit e-mail is not getting through and costumers are complaining.
> >
> >
> > You can check https://www.nk.ca/eximstats.html OR
> >
> > https://www.nk.ca/eximstats-YYYY-MM-DD.html
> >
> > for more information.
> >

Ateempted but not happening. I wonder if the IPs are being faked.

--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b
Birthdate: 29 Jan 1969 Redhill, Surrey, England Beware https://mindspring.com

--
## List details at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/
## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
Re: Blocking a Class C [ In reply to ]
On Wed, 18 Jan 2023, The Doctor via Exim-users wrote:

>> On Thu, Jan 19, 2023, 00:33 The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> Still having problems with
>>>
>>> /var/log/exim/in_rejectlog:2023-01-18 14:27:01.484 [97258] refused
>>> connection from [46.148.40.108]:61402 I=[204.209.81.246]:465
>>> (host_reject_connection)
>>>
>>> THere are still coming and not being dropped in a timely manner.
>>>
>>> can these packets be dropped in less than 0.01 ms?
>>>
>>> Legit e-mail is not getting through and costumers are complaining.
>
>> On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 12:36:38AM +0300, Odhiambo Washington via Exim-users wrote:
>> Block at the firewall before they reach the server.
>>
> Ateempted but not happening. I wonder if the IPs are being faked.

I don't think faked packets would get through the firewall if you are
blocking the faked IP address.

The logs indicate that the attacker is connecting to port 465.
Are you blocking that as well as port 25 ?

--
Andrew C. Aitchison Kendal, UK
andrew@aitchison.me.uk

--
## List details at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/
## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
Re: Blocking a Class C [ In reply to ]
On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 08:44:30AM +0000, Andrew C Aitchison via Exim-users wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jan 2023, The Doctor via Exim-users wrote:
>
> >> On Thu, Jan 19, 2023, 00:33 The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Still having problems with
> >>>
> >>> /var/log/exim/in_rejectlog:2023-01-18 14:27:01.484 [97258] refused
> >>> connection from [46.148.40.108]:61402 I=[204.209.81.246]:465
> >>> (host_reject_connection)
> >>>
> >>> THere are still coming and not being dropped in a timely manner.
> >>>
> >>> can these packets be dropped in less than 0.01 ms?
> >>>
> >>> Legit e-mail is not getting through and costumers are complaining.
> >
> >> On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 12:36:38AM +0300, Odhiambo Washington via Exim-users wrote:
> >> Block at the firewall before they reach the server.
> >>
> > Ateempted but not happening. I wonder if the IPs are being faked.
>
> I don't think faked packets would get through the firewall if you are
> blocking the faked IP address.
>
> The logs indicate that the attacker is connecting to port 465.
> Are you blocking that as well as port 25 ?
>

I cannot block port 25 if I want mail from the outside world to get it.

> --
> Andrew C. Aitchison Kendal, UK
> andrew@aitchison.me.uk
>
> --
> ## List details at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
> ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/
> ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/

--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b
Birthdate: 29 Jan 1969 Redhill, Surrey, England Beware https://mindspring.com

--
## List details at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/
## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
Re: Blocking a Class C [ In reply to ]
On Thu, 19 Jan 2023, The Doctor wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 08:44:30AM +0000, Andrew C Aitchison via Exim-users wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 Jan 2023, The Doctor via Exim-users wrote:
>>
>>>> On Thu, Jan 19, 2023, 00:33 The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Still having problems with
>>>>>
>>>>> /var/log/exim/in_rejectlog:2023-01-18 14:27:01.484 [97258] refused
>>>>> connection from [46.148.40.108]:61402 I=[204.209.81.246]:465
>>>>> (host_reject_connection)
>>>>>
>>>>> THere are still coming and not being dropped in a timely manner.
>>>>>
>>>>> can these packets be dropped in less than 0.01 ms?
>>>>>
>>>>> Legit e-mail is not getting through and costumers are complaining.
>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 12:36:38AM +0300, Odhiambo Washington via Exim-users wrote:
>>>> Block at the firewall before they reach the server.
>>>>
>>> Ateempted but not happening. I wonder if the IPs are being faked.
>>
>> I don't think faked packets would get through the firewall if you are
>> blocking the faked IP address.
>>
>> The logs indicate that the attacker is connecting to port 465.
>> Are you blocking that as well as port 25 ?
>>
> I cannot block port 25 if I want mail from the outside world to get it.

I assumed that you were blocking the pair
(src ip 46.148.40.108, target port 25)
and was checking that you are also blocking
(src ip 46.148.40.108, target port 465)

--
Andrew C. Aitchison Kendal, UK
andrew@aitchison.me.uk

--
## List details at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/
## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
Re: Blocking a Class C [ In reply to ]
On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 11:57:04AM +0000, Andrew C Aitchison via Exim-users wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jan 2023, The Doctor wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 08:44:30AM +0000, Andrew C Aitchison via Exim-users wrote:
> >> On Wed, 18 Jan 2023, The Doctor via Exim-users wrote:
> >>
> >>>> On Thu, Jan 19, 2023, 00:33 The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Still having problems with
> >>>>>
> >>>>> /var/log/exim/in_rejectlog:2023-01-18 14:27:01.484 [97258] refused
> >>>>> connection from [46.148.40.108]:61402 I=[204.209.81.246]:465
> >>>>> (host_reject_connection)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> THere are still coming and not being dropped in a timely manner.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> can these packets be dropped in less than 0.01 ms?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Legit e-mail is not getting through and costumers are complaining.
> >>>
> >>>> On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 12:36:38AM +0300, Odhiambo Washington via Exim-users wrote:
> >>>> Block at the firewall before they reach the server.
> >>>>
> >>> Ateempted but not happening. I wonder if the IPs are being faked.
> >>
> >> I don't think faked packets would get through the firewall if you are
> >> blocking the faked IP address.
> >>
> >> The logs indicate that the attacker is connecting to port 465.
> >> Are you blocking that as well as port 25 ?
> >>
> > I cannot block port 25 if I want mail from the outside world to get it.
>
> I assumed that you were blocking the pair
> (src ip 46.148.40.108, target port 25)
> and was checking that you are also blocking
> (src ip 46.148.40.108, target port 465)
>

Could this cause a 601 error?

> --
> Andrew C. Aitchison Kendal, UK
> andrew@aitchison.me.uk
>
> --
> ## List details at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
> ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/
> ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/

--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism https://www.empire.kred/ROOTNK?t=94a1f39b
Birthdate: 29 Jan 1969 Redhill, Surrey, England Beware https://mindspring.com

--
## List details at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/
## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
Re: Blocking a Class C [ In reply to ]
On 19/01/2023 17:32, The Doctor via Exim-users wrote:
>> I assumed that you were blocking the pair
>> (src ip 46.148.40.108, target port 25)
>> and was checking that you are also blocking
>> (src ip 46.148.40.108, target port 465)
>>
> Could this cause a 601 error?

Possibly a typo? SMTP does not define any 6xx error code.

Also, irrelevant. Blocking done by a firewall would be
stopping TCP-level connection, so you won't get any SMTP
communication at all. How a client reports that is up to it.

--
Cheers,
Jeremy


--
## List details at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/
## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/

1 2  View All