UDP is kind of stream rather then a connection. for each and every 65535 bytes there is an end point to the connection. This is why Connection Tracking was invented. If you want to intercept UDP you will need to track the connections. Eliezer On 06/26/2013 11:05 PM, Thomas Penteker wrote:
Hello,
After consulting various resources wihtout success I hope to find help on this mailing-list.
I want to intercept all UDP traffic leaving tap1. And possibly reply to e.g. DNS-requests. To accomplish this I wrote some python code listening to localhost and use iptables with a rule-set like this:
Chain PREROUTING (policy ACCEPT 2 packets, 333 bytes) pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination
0 0 DIVERT udp -- tap1 any anywhere anywhere socket 0 0 TPROXY udp -- tap1 any anywhere anywhere TPROXY redirect 127.0.0.1:5001 mark 0x1/0x1
Chain DIVERT (1 references) pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination 0 0 MARK udp -- any any anywhere anywhere MARK set 0x1 0 0 ACCEPT udp -- any any anywhere anywhere Policy routing is done with:
ip rule add fwmark 1 lookup 100 ip route add local 0.0.0.0/0 dev lo table 100 This setup was adapted from the kernel's Documentation/networking/tproxy.txt. This works flawlessly for a TCP socket opened with the IP_TRANSPARENT option.
Unfortunately UDP sockets don't seem to be able to handle connections. For example if I do a ncat -u localhost 1234 the socket will receive data but cannot send anything back. Wireshark will show exactly three packets for:
the incoming ncat packet (to localhost:1234) the outgoing packet of my software (to :5001) an ICMP Port unreachable (of course) For arbitrary ports to work I guess it's not feasable to set up proper (S)NATting rules.
So, what's the necessary setup to make this work for arbitrary incoming ports?
Thanks for your help
with kind regards,
Thomas Penteker
_______________________________________________ tproxy mailing list tproxy@lists.balabit.hu https://lists.balabit.hu/mailman/listinfo/tproxy