Dnat Problem Discussions Sophos Firewall Sophos Community Connect Learn And Stay Secure

By switzerlandersing On Sep 16, 2025

SSL VPN Sophos Connect Failed - Discussions - Sophos Firewall - Sophos Community - Connect ...

SSL VPN Sophos Connect Failed - Discussions - Sophos Firewall - Sophos Community - Connect ... What is the difference between a source nat, destination nat and masquerading? for example, i thought ip masqurading was what they used to call it in linux? but what confuses me is that in our ast. 4 as far as i can tell "destination nat (with pat)" and "port forwarding" are different terms for the same thing, or are there any technical differences?.

Sophos Connect SSL Warning Message - Discussions - Sophos Firewall - Sophos Community - Connect ...

Sophos Connect SSL Warning Message - Discussions - Sophos Firewall - Sophos Community - Connect ... Docker already dnat routes this port correctly (except from the host itself, where docker proxy plays this role) in the very last rule of the ruleset, to the running container with the 172.18.0.2 address. The dnat is defined using the map lookup on the destination port. ip saddr 10.0.0.0/8 ip daddr . tcp dport @dnat masq masquerade this is analogous to the masquerade rule in the iptables answer, if the source is a lan address and the destination address and port are in the dnat allowed set, then masquerade. The problem is that the dnat goes first, and since it translates the destination, i don't know what to match on in the snat. if i was able to make the snat happen first, that would solve the problem. or if i was somehow able to 'mark' the connection with the dnat and then match on that in the snat, that would work too. I have had the dnat rule in place for months and it works for tcp and udp. my problem is that outbound packets are not snat ed to change the source ip, which causes them to appear to come from a different ip address. if there is no connection tracking entry, the snat rule works for both udp and tcp.

DNAT Problem - Discussions - Sophos Firewall - Sophos Community - Connect, Learn, And Stay Secure

DNAT Problem - Discussions - Sophos Firewall - Sophos Community - Connect, Learn, And Stay Secure The problem is that the dnat goes first, and since it translates the destination, i don't know what to match on in the snat. if i was able to make the snat happen first, that would solve the problem. or if i was somehow able to 'mark' the connection with the dnat and then match on that in the snat, that would work too. I have had the dnat rule in place for months and it works for tcp and udp. my problem is that outbound packets are not snat ed to change the source ip, which causes them to appear to come from a different ip address. if there is no connection tracking entry, the snat rule works for both udp and tcp. Take inspiration from dsr load balancing and dnat the packets at ethernet layer instead of at ip layer. by replacing the destination mac of the packets with the mac of 192.168.12.77 and sending it on the ethernet without touching the ip layer, then 192.168.12.77 could have 192.168.12.87 configured on a dummy interface and thus be able to. I am looking for a way to forward all traffic(to any port) from a pc to a certain ip. looking at the rule below : iptables t nat a prerouting p tcp dport 443 jump dnat to destination 129. To confirm i understand your answer: you're saying that dnat only may be appropriate when the router is already acting as a nat box and you just want to add supplementary port forwarding? i was asking if it ever made sense to use a single dnat as the only mapping in the nat table. However, dnat won't be enough, because – as the chain name implies – the rewriting is done before routing decisions are made. once the system gets to routing, well, it still has two conflicting 192.168.1.0/24 interfaces.

DNAT Problem - Discussions - Sophos Firewall - Sophos Community - Connect, Learn, And Stay Secure

DNAT Problem - Discussions - Sophos Firewall - Sophos Community - Connect, Learn, And Stay Secure Take inspiration from dsr load balancing and dnat the packets at ethernet layer instead of at ip layer. by replacing the destination mac of the packets with the mac of 192.168.12.77 and sending it on the ethernet without touching the ip layer, then 192.168.12.77 could have 192.168.12.87 configured on a dummy interface and thus be able to. I am looking for a way to forward all traffic(to any port) from a pc to a certain ip. looking at the rule below : iptables t nat a prerouting p tcp dport 443 jump dnat to destination 129. To confirm i understand your answer: you're saying that dnat only may be appropriate when the router is already acting as a nat box and you just want to add supplementary port forwarding? i was asking if it ever made sense to use a single dnat as the only mapping in the nat table. However, dnat won't be enough, because – as the chain name implies – the rewriting is done before routing decisions are made. once the system gets to routing, well, it still has two conflicting 192.168.1.0/24 interfaces.