1
Intrusion Detection and Prevention / Re: IPS and throughput performance
« on: March 21, 2021, 07:00:30 pm »
Very strange... I was about to flash back from coreboot to the standard AMI BIOS as a (very) out-side possibility, decided to test a few other things first.
1) I'm using a firewall group for "Inside Networks"
2) I have the main LAN interface assigned as a fail-over LAG (POS Netgear smart-switch can't do LACP and doesn't behave properly with static or LB modes - wish I would have thought to look for EOS / EOL cisco switches on amazon / e-bay)
I dropped the firewall group after moving the rules to the individual interfaces - and the problem largely disappeared. Used the same testing methodolgy as before (enable/disable rule-set, download and update rules, restart service, go to http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest) and definitely getting different results without the firewall group.
Rulesets for botcc.portgroupd, ciarmy, emerging-malware, and emerging-mobile_malware now have no impact on throughput. Attempting to use emerging-web_client still tanks throughput though - guessing that is a ruleset issue. I don't want to tear-down lagg0 just to check this rule-set as it is a PITA to reassign everything, wish there was a simple way to "reassign" an interface (but get why there isn't).
This doesn't make much sense to me, other than a weird possibility that ipfw has some sort of "translation" issue talking to pf if a group is in use. Can't sort out in my head how that would happen though...
Between the Unbound DNS SBLs, a firewall drop alias for https://sslbl.abuse.ch/blacklist, http://rules.emergingthreats.net/blockrules/compromised-ips.txt, http://rules.emergingthreats.net/fwrules/emerging-Block-IPs.txt, and the above IPS rulesets that do work I'm pretty happy with the additional level of protection.
Thank you to the devs for an excellent product.
1) I'm using a firewall group for "Inside Networks"
2) I have the main LAN interface assigned as a fail-over LAG (POS Netgear smart-switch can't do LACP and doesn't behave properly with static or LB modes - wish I would have thought to look for EOS / EOL cisco switches on amazon / e-bay)
I dropped the firewall group after moving the rules to the individual interfaces - and the problem largely disappeared. Used the same testing methodolgy as before (enable/disable rule-set, download and update rules, restart service, go to http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest) and definitely getting different results without the firewall group.
Rulesets for botcc.portgroupd, ciarmy, emerging-malware, and emerging-mobile_malware now have no impact on throughput. Attempting to use emerging-web_client still tanks throughput though - guessing that is a ruleset issue. I don't want to tear-down lagg0 just to check this rule-set as it is a PITA to reassign everything, wish there was a simple way to "reassign" an interface (but get why there isn't).
This doesn't make much sense to me, other than a weird possibility that ipfw has some sort of "translation" issue talking to pf if a group is in use. Can't sort out in my head how that would happen though...
Between the Unbound DNS SBLs, a firewall drop alias for https://sslbl.abuse.ch/blacklist, http://rules.emergingthreats.net/blockrules/compromised-ips.txt, http://rules.emergingthreats.net/fwrules/emerging-Block-IPs.txt, and the above IPS rulesets that do work I'm pretty happy with the additional level of protection.
Thank you to the devs for an excellent product.