Sunday, June 9, 2024

My firewall, as of 2024

On my old Ubuntu installation, I had set up firewall rules to keep me focused on things (and to keep software in line, like blocking plain DNS to require DoT to CloudFlare.)

Before doing a fresh installation, I saved copies of /etc/gufw and /etc/ufw, but they didn’t turn out to be terribly useful.  I don’t know what happened, but some of the rules lost address information.  The ruleset ended up allowing printing to the whole internet, for instance.

I didn’t have a need for profiles (I don’t take my desktop to other networks), so I ended up reconstructing it all as a script that uses ufw, and removing gufw from the system entirely (take that!)

That script looks in part like this:

#!/bin/sh
set -eufC
# -- out --
ufw default reject outgoing
ufw allow out 443/udp comment 'HTTP 3'
ufw allow out 80,443/tcp comment 'Old HTTP'
ufw allow out proto tcp \
    to 192.168.0.251 port 631,9100 \
    comment 'CUPS to Megabrick'
ufw allow out on virbr0 proto tcp \
    to any port 22 comment 'VM SSH'
# -- in --
ufw default deny incoming
ufw allow in 9000:9010/tcp \
    comment 'XDebug listener'

This subset captures all of the syntax I’m using: basic and advanced forms, and all of the shapes of multi-port rules.  One must use the ‘advanced’ form to specify address or interface restrictions.  However, ufw is extremely unhelpful about error messages, usually only giving out “wrong number of arguments.”  The typical recourse is either to look harder at the man page syntax, or to try to roll back conditions until it gets accepted.

For deleting those test rules, the best way is ufw status numbered followed by ufw delete N where N is the desired rule number.  (You can also do ufw reset and start over.)

Note that the ufw port range syntax is “low:high” with a colon, like iptables. For example, 9000:9010 is a range of 11 ports; 9000,9010 is a list of only those two ports.

(I gave the printer a static IP because Windows; thus, the printer’s static IP appears in the ruleset.)

This script, then, only has to be run once per fresh install; after that, ufw will remember these rules and apply them at boot.

Sunday, June 2, 2024

Stateful Deployment was Orthogonal

I used to talk about “stateful, binary” deployment, thinking that both things would happen together:

  1. We would deploy from a built tarball, without any git pull or composer install steps
  2. We would record the actual version (or whole tarball path) that was deployed

This year, we finally accumulated enough failures caused by auto-deploy picking up pushed code that wasn’t ready that we decided we had to solve that issue. It turned out to be unimportant that we weren’t deploying from tarballs.

We introduced a new flag for “auto mode” for the instance-launch scripts to use. Without the flag, deployment happens in manual mode: it performs the requested operation (almost) as it always has, then writes the resulting branch, commit, and (if applicable) tarball overlay as the deployed state.

In contrast, auto mode simply reads the deployed state, and applies that exact branch, commit, and overlay as requested.

I say “simply,” but watch out for what happens to a repository which doesn’t have any state stored.  This isn’t a one-time thing: when adding new repositories later, their first deployment won’t have state yet, either.  This can disrupt both auto and manual deployments.