I'm writing a bash script to add simple firewalling for Xen.
Here's the actual firewall configuration :
Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT)
target prot opt source destination
RH-Firewall-1-INPUT all -- anywhere anywhere
Chain FORWARD (policy ACCEPT)
target prot opt source destination
RH-Firewall-1-INPUT all -- anywhere anywhere
Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT)
target prot opt source destination
Chain RH-Firewall-1-INPUT (2 references)
target prot opt source destination
ACCEPT all -- anywhere anywhere
ACCEPT icmp -- anywhere anywhere icmp any
ACCEPT esp -- anywhere anywhere
ACCEPT ah -- anywhere anywhere
ACCEPT udp -- anywhere 224.0.0.251 udp dpt:mdns
ACCEPT udp -- anywhere anywhere udp dpt:ipp
ACCEPT tcp -- anywhere anywhere tcp dpt:ipp
ACCEPT all -- anywhere anywhere state RELATED,ESTABLISHED
ACCEPT udp -- anywhere anywhere state NEW udp dpt:ha-cluster
ACCEPT tcp -- anywhere anywhere state NEW tcp dpt:ssh
ACCEPT tcp -- anywhere anywhere state NEW tcp dpt:http
ACCEPT tcp -- anywhere anywhere state NEW tcp dpt:https
REJECT all -- anywhere anywhere reject-with icmp-host-prohibited
I'd like to add a new chain for each of my virtual machines (each of them has a virtual interface called vif1.0, vif2.0, etc). Output interface (bridge) is xenbr0.
Here's what I do (for example to block ping 'in'to domU1, vif1.0) :
iptables -N domUFirewall
iptables -I FORWARD -j domUFirewall
iptables -I INPUT -j domUFirewall
iptables -A domUFirewall -i vif1.0 -p icmp -j DROP
But .. it doesn't work, i'm still able to ping in/out the domU.
Must be something really 'dumb' but I can't find out what's wrong.
Any clues ?
Thx
Since you're using XEN with bridged networking, packets are being intercepted at a level before ordinary iptables commands can influence them. Thus, you'll probably need to use the ebtables
command to influence packet routing in the way that you want to.
Original answer left below that will work for other configurations, but not for XEN with bridged networking.
I am going to pretend for the sake of example that the IP address of vif1.0
is 192.168.1.100.
I would redo the logic to not check the input device, but to instead check by IP Address. At the input chain, the packet is coming from (say) device eth0
, not from vif1.0
. Thus, this rule:
iptables -I INPUT -i vif1.0 -j domUFirewall
that I previously proposed will never match any packets. However, if you do the following, it should do what you want:
iptables -I INPUT -d 192.168.1.100 -j domUFirewall
where in this case the chain domUFirewall
is set up by:
iptables -N domUFirewall
iptables -F domUFirewall
iptables -A domUFirewall -p icmp -j DROP
If a given chain is for a single device, then you want to make this check before jumping into the chain, on a rule with the "-j chainName
" action. Then, in the chain itself, you never have to check for the device or IP Address.
Second, I would always flush (empty) the chain in your script, just in case you're re-running the script. Note that when you rerun the script, you may get complaints on the -N
line. That's OK.
There are other ways you could do this, but to give a different example, I would need to know specifically how your VM is set up -- bridged networking? NAT? Etc. But the example I gave here should work in any of these modes.
Here are some useful links for the future: