Finer-grained firewall: allow specific hosts, in particular to SSH #22586

P-E-Meunier · 2017-02-09T09:58:52Z

Motivation for this change

I'm running nixos on a VPS, which I intend to use as a public-facing machine. Because my SSH setup is not particularly simple (I'm running OpenSSH on some port, and providing a different service using the SSH protocol on port 22), I'd like to connect to OpenSSH only through a proxy.

I tried to use openssh.listenAdresses, but locked myself out while trying (which was not pleasant to repair), and the resulting OpenSSH was sending REJECT packets anyway when nmapping my machine.

This change allows to allow specific hosts on specific ports. It also allows one to disable the OpenSSH ports from the outside. There is certainly a small risk of being locked out, but it is repaired with a single iptables -F.

Things done

Tested using sandboxing
(nix.useSandbox on NixOS,
or option build-use-sandbox in nix.conf
on non-NixOS)
Built on platform(s)
- NixOS
- macOS
- Linux
Tested compilation of all pkgs that depend on this change using nix-shell -p nox --run "nox-review wip"
Tested execution of all binary files (usually in ./result/bin/)
Fits CONTRIBUTING.md.

…h "allow all"

mention-bot · 2017-02-09T09:58:54Z

@P-E-Meunier, thanks for your PR! By analyzing the history of the files in this pull request, we identified @edolstra, @wkennington and @primeos to be potential reviewers.

edolstra · 2017-02-09T10:53:09Z

nixos/modules/services/networking/firewall.nix

+           protocol = mkOption { type = types.enum ["tcp" "udp" "icmp"]; default = ""; example = "tcp"; description = "Protocol used."; };
+           dport = mkOption { type = types.int; default = 0; example = 22; description = "Destination port of the packet."; };
+           useIPv4 = mkOption { type = types.bool; default = true; description = "Use the IPv4 address of this host."; };
+           useIPv6 = mkOption { type = types.bool; default = true; description = "Use the IPv6 address of this host."; };


What does "Use the IPv4/IPv6 address of this host" mean? Do you mean "Accept IPv4/IPv6 traffic from this host"?

In fact it's unclear what "host" means. Should that be "from this source"? Can source be a CIDR prefix?

edolstra · 2017-02-09T10:53:25Z

nixos/modules/services/networking/firewall.nix

@@ -177,6 +177,21 @@ let
      ) cfg.allowedUDPPortRanges
    }

+    # Accept packets on the extra allowed host+port combination.
+    ${concatMapStrings (allowed:
+      if (allowed.useIPv4 || allowed.usedIPv6) then (


Parentheses around "if" conditions are unnecessary, this isn't C.

Mic92

I see the need of the added options here. I added some comments regarding naming options.

Mic92 · 2017-02-09T10:44:00Z

nixos/modules/services/networking/firewall.nix

+           protocol = mkOption { type = types.enum ["tcp" "udp" "icmp"]; default = ""; example = "tcp"; description = "Protocol used."; };
+           dport = mkOption { type = types.int; default = 0; example = 22; description = "Destination port of the packet."; };
+           useIPv4 = mkOption { type = types.bool; default = true; description = "Use the IPv4 address of this host."; };
+           useIPv6 = mkOption { type = types.bool; default = true; description = "Use the IPv6 address of this host."; };


I would use allowIPv4 or allowIPv6 instead of use or make it an enum called addressFamily with the options "ipv6", "ipv4" and "all".

Mic92 · 2017-02-09T10:44:07Z

nixos/modules/services/networking/firewall.nix

@@ -177,6 +177,21 @@ let
      ) cfg.allowedUDPPortRanges
    }

+    # Accept packets on the extra allowed host+port combination.
+    ${concatMapStrings (allowed:
+      if (allowed.useIPv4 || allowed.usedIPv6) then (


allowed.useIpv6 not allowed.usedIpv6. If you use an enum for the address family you can drop this if clause.

Mic92 · 2017-02-09T10:45:58Z

nixos/modules/services/networking/firewall.nix

@@ -493,6 +508,22 @@ in
        '';
    };

+    networking.firewall.extraAllowed = mkOption {
+      type = types.listOf (types.submodule { options = {
+           source = mkOption { type = types.string; default = ""; example = "example.com"; description = "Source of the packets"; };


Is sourceAddress better here? destinationAddress could be also added. I would also mention that it is possible to specifiy a subnet here.

Mic92 · 2017-02-09T10:48:28Z

nixos/modules/services/networking/firewall.nix

+      type = types.listOf (types.submodule { options = {
+           source = mkOption { type = types.string; default = ""; example = "example.com"; description = "Source of the packets"; };
+           protocol = mkOption { type = types.enum ["tcp" "udp" "icmp"]; default = ""; example = "tcp"; description = "Protocol used."; };
+           dport = mkOption { type = types.int; default = 0; example = 22; description = "Destination port of the packet."; };


I find destinationPort better here. The nixos module should be easier to use then iptables.
sourcePort might be also worth adding.

Mic92 · 2017-02-09T10:51:06Z

nixos/modules/services/networking/firewall.nix

+        ) else (
+           "ip6tables -A nixos-fw "
+        ))
+        + (if (allowed.source != "") then (" --source " + allowed.source) else "")


Please use optionalString and string interpolation in all instances instead of if clauses and +

ex.:

${optionalString (allowed.source != "") " --source ${allowed.source}"}

Mic92 · 2017-02-09T10:56:16Z

oh, I reviewed with @edolstra in parallel.

edolstra · 2017-02-09T10:57:55Z

nixos/modules/services/networking/firewall.nix

+    networking.firewall.extraAllowed = mkOption {
+      type = types.listOf (types.submodule { options = {
+           source = mkOption { type = types.string; default = ""; example = "example.com"; description = "Source of the packets"; };
+           protocol = mkOption { type = types.enum ["tcp" "udp" "icmp"]; default = ""; example = "tcp"; description = "Protocol used."; };


What does an empty default do? Note that "" does not match (or should not match, I didn't test) the valid values in the enum. A better type might be nullOr (listOf (enum ["tcp" "udp" "icmp"])), where null means any protocol. This also allows specifying multiple protocols (e.g. ["tcp" "udp"]).

edolstra · 2017-02-09T11:01:18Z

nixos/modules/services/networking/firewall.nix

+           useIPv6 = mkOption { type = types.bool; default = true; description = "Use the IPv6 address of this host."; };
+      };});
+      default = [];
+      example = [ { source = "example.com"; protocol = "tcp"; dport = 22; } ];


From the iptables manpage:

Hostnames will be resolved once only, before the rule is submitted to the kernel. Please note that specifying any name to be resolved with a remote query such as DNS is a really bad idea.

So in order not to give people bad ideas, it would be better to use an IP address in the example. (See https://tools.ietf.org/search/rfc5737)

I had not realized that, but this felt wrong indeed.

The reason for the useIPv4 and useIPv6 is that the iptables rules introduced by this pull request might match addresses specified in either IPv4 or IPv6.

Since some hosts don't have an IPv6 yet, or don't have an IPv4 anymore, we need a way to tell whether to call iptables or ip6tables.

Mic92 · 2017-02-09T12:44:15Z

nixos/modules/services/networking/firewall.nix

+        concatMapStrings (protocol:
+          (if addressFamily == "IPv4" then "iptables -A nixos-fw "
+           else "ip6tables -A nixos-fw ")
+          + (if allowed.sourceAddress != null then (" --source " + allowed.sourceAddress) else "")


Using lib.optionalString to conditionally interpolate is best practice in nixpkgs.

Mic92 · 2017-02-09T12:48:30Z

nixos/modules/services/networking/firewall.nix

+                description = "Destination port of the packet. This might be either an integer port number, or the name of a protocol, such as \"http\" or \"ssh\".";
+           };
+           addressFamily = mkOption {
+                type = types.listOf (types.enum ["IPv4" "IPv6"]);


All instances of types.enum I found, use were lowercase. So I think it would be consistent to keep that

type = types.listOf (types.enum ["ipv4" "ipv6"]);

Done, thanks.

Mic92 · 2017-02-09T12:50:54Z

nixos/modules/services/networking/firewall.nix

+                description = "Destination of the packets. Same comment as for the `sourceAddress` parameter.";
+           };
+           protocols = mkOption {
+                type = types.nullOr (types.listOf (types.enum ["tcp" "udp" "icmp"]));


From the manpage of iptables regarding protocols flag:

The protocol of the rule or of the packet to check. The specified protocol can be one of tcp, udp, udplite, icmp, esp, ah, sctp or the special keyword "all", or it can be a numeric value, representing one of these protocols or a different one. A protocol name from /etc/protocols is also allowed. A "!" argument before the protocol inverts the test. The number zero is equivalent to all. "all" will match with all protocols and is taken as default when this option is omitted.

I think we cannot use a enum here without being too restrictive.

I agree that adding udplite, icmp, esp, ah, sctp seems like a good idea. According to the same manpage, "all" is implied when this option is omitted, and this is already implemented (besides, "all" doesn't really have the same "type" as other protocols, this might be confusing, what should happen if I say ["tcp" "all"]?).

I'm not sure about including things from /etc/protocols, how is that file generated on nixos? I guess root is able to change manually, right?
Then how does this not breaks referential transparency?

@P-E-Meunier currently /etc/protocols is a file part of iana_etc. User might extend or replace it.

primeos

Hey, I'm so sorry about all the (probably annoying) coding-style requests... - I'm probably a bit too picky about that but I'd really like it if we could be consistent with the rest of the module 😄

primeos · 2017-02-09T14:59:16Z

nixos/modules/services/networking/firewall.nix

+                type = types.nullOr types.string;
+                default = null;
+                example = "198.51.100.0";
+                description = "Source of the packets. According to the iptables manual, DNS host names might be used here, but their use is discouraged (in particular because this delegates the security rule to DNS servers). DNS host names are resolved only when the rule is loaded.";


Could you please wrap all long lines to about 72 characters? Thanks 😄

Also this module is using two spaces between sentences (GNU/Emacs/19th Century (American) typist/typewriter convention) would be great if we could keep that consistent 😄

(I personally wouldn't mind if we would get rid of this, since I assume only a few people (mostly Emacs/Spacemacs users) are used to this, but keeping it would be simpler and less likely to start a rebellion :D)

Done. OTOH, some emacs users (including myself) are also used to mode and formatting tools that apply style guidelines automatically…

primeos · 2017-02-09T15:00:34Z

nixos/modules/services/networking/firewall.nix

+           protocols = mkOption {
+                type = types.nullOr (types.listOf (types.enum ["tcp" "udp" "icmp"]));
+                default = null;
+                example = ["tcp"];


example = [ "tcp" ]; would be consistent with the rest of the module (this applies to e.g. [ "tcp" "udp" "icmp" ] as well).

Done, thanks.

primeos · 2017-02-09T15:00:56Z

nixos/modules/services/networking/firewall.nix

+                description = "The address family of the sourceAddress and destAddress parameters. If these addresses use a DNS lookup (despite recommendations), make sure the host has addresses in this family.";
+           };
+      };});
+      default = [];


default = [ ];

I changed that, thanks.

primeos · 2017-02-09T15:05:10Z

nixos/modules/services/networking/ssh/sshd.nix

+        description = ''
+          Specifies whether the ports the SSH daemon listens on must
+          be enabled in the firewall. Remember to open at least some
+          of them.


That's a great change (imho) - related to #19504

For example, enabling a module should not open firewall ports by default.

I don't think we should immediately use default = false but we should make it clear in the description that this will probably happen in the future and that one shouldn't enable this option (i.e. use the firewall module instead).

Additional information can be found in the related issue: #19504

Well, as far as I'm concerned, I appreciate the fact that nixops doesn't lock me out of my machine on the first run.

Even though nixops is a great tool after some time, it is not totally easy to master at first (potentially due to lack of documentation on how it works conceptually). I remember learning both nix and nixops at the same time, it wasn't very "fun" (I'm having a lot of fun using it now, though).

@P-E-Meunier Yeah, that's why changing the default is indeed really problematic...

However using services.openssh.listenAddresses with a different port than services.openssh.ports will still lock you out (but obviously you already know that).

Another possible solution would be to use your new option for allowing the (IP, Port) combinations from services.openssh.listenAddresses as well, which would still be against the convention but at least improve the current situation.

@edolstra, @Mic92, @wkennington, #19504 - Any opinions on that?

We could also start using the "services" solution (#19504 (comment) from @Mic92) which would also greatly improve our current situation (imho) but probably require some additional thinking/discussion.

Imho it would also be a good idea to move that option over to the firewall module (e.g. networking.firewall.allowSSH (or allowServices = [ ... ], allowPorts = [ service.openssh.ports ]) - Could probably even be the best solution (idk)...

Could you be more specific as to why it might be useful to combine services.openssh.listenAddresses with this PR?
I must confess I don't really understand how to use services.openssh.listenAddresses: it sends RST packets (revealing that there's an SSH server running on the machine), and it is so easy to lock yourself out by just testing things, without any real way to go back.

In my situation (VPS + nixops), this PR would have enabled me to just logged via a "web console", and type "iptables -F" to re-enable everything, whereas listenAddresses forced me to write a new ssh configuration in the web console (with an incorrect keyboard layout and a terrible lag), and then to try and understand how to start an SSH server in the command line just be able to run nixops again.

Could you be more specific as to why it might be useful to combine services.openssh.listenAddresses with this PR?

We don't necessarily have to combine it with this PR, but Imho it is a good idea to consider this since you made related modifications inside the openssh module (and at least we have to get the description right!).

Imust confess I don't really understand how to use services.openssh.listenAddresses

It doesn't modify the firewall (atm) so you have to do that manually (I thought this is how you've locked yourself out in the first place).

By default OpenSSH will listen on port 22 on all IP addresses of all interfaces, with this option you could e.g. limit that to [::1]:22 (yes, that example doesn't make much sense...).

it sends RST packets (revealing that there's an SSH server running on the machine)

I assume that RST packet (TCP reset) came from the firewall. Then you should only get those for existing connections (I guess that terminated your running SSH session).

"iptables -F" to re-enable everything, whereas listenAddresses

The change is intended to prevent a user from getting into that situation (not to fix a "broken" firewall) 😉

primeos · 2017-02-09T15:12:08Z

nixos/modules/services/networking/firewall.nix

+           sport = mkOption {
+                type = types.nullOr types.string;
+                default = null;
+                example = null;


Imho using a different example than the value of the default would be better.

primeos · 2017-02-09T15:18:55Z

nixos/modules/services/networking/firewall.nix

+        concatMapStrings (addressFamily:
+        concatMapStrings (protocol:
+          (if addressFamily == "IPv4" then "iptables -A nixos-fw "
+           else "ip6tables -A nixos-fw ")


Could you please add the -w option to iptables and ip6tables (just to be safe 😄)?

Oh, and could we move that part to the end of the "static" stuff (imho right above ${cfg.extraCommands} would be the best place)?

That way reading the output of e.g. iptables -nvL would be easier (the default rules first since they normally don't change and then the custom stuff).

This is indeed a good point. I'm changing it.

edolstra · 2017-02-09T19:24:45Z

nixos/modules/services/networking/ssh/sshd.nix

@@ -128,6 +128,16 @@ in
        '';
      };

+      firewallOpenPorts = mkOption {


=> openInFirewall?

joachifm · 2017-02-10T17:30:49Z

nixos/modules/services/networking/firewall.nix

+    networking.firewall.extraAllowed = mkOption {
+      type = types.listOf (types.submodule { options = {
+        sourceAddress = mkOption {
+          type = types.nullOr types.string;


Is the choice of types.string deliberate? Usually str is preferred for plain strings.

It's not. Why is str preferred? What's the difference?

string has merge semantics that may differ from what you expect. If two modules declare values for an option foo, the final value is the concatenation of the two values, so if module A sets it to "foo" and B sets it to "bar" it'd end up as "foobar" in the final config object.

Thanks for the explanation, I just fixed it!

Mic92 · 2017-02-12T20:03:37Z

I would still not make protocols an enum but make it dynamic because the list of possible values is open ended and too large. For instance I use gre and ospf, which is not in this list.

…h "allow all"

danbst · 2017-02-20T16:27:44Z

@Mic92 your use case might be covered by @ericsagnes work on extensible enums (for example #20271)

Mic92 · 2017-02-26T12:19:13Z

pkgs/top-level/rust-packages.nix

-  sha256 = "1dklswbf3acfqid4vv7g2xpqc4gswjgh4ih9xjx3a0m3a69cw9lb";
+  version = "2017-02-13";
+  rev = "1e63b42f967d6bb3338526c3570bf81049153702";
+  sha256 = "17w79fic6ndb724z7zywm1cisha362bjvs8sbvv740nrvsya41gy";


Can you remove these unrelated commits again? A different branch for this work would be ideal.

I'm not sure how to do that, I realised these commits were there after pushing :(

You can checkout a new branch:

$ git checkout firewall

and then use git-rebase:

git rebase -i 6c43d68ff0498dacb75f99ba487fbb7160c68fd5

This will open an editor. Each line is a commit and you can remove unrelated commits by deleting lines. You can also squash commits into the previous by replacing pick with squash at the begin of the line.

You can "delete" your last commit by executing git reset --hard 72c75e795ac86333d9aadcd8ba934bfc06cfe08e 😉

I guess you caused that merge commit by running git pull in that case you can run git pull --rebase (while this PR is open) to avoid that the next time (or use git fetch instead but that's a bit more complicated). And for your next PR I would suggest that you create a new branch (i.e. don't use your master branch) - this doesn't really matter but normally it will make things easier for you.

Edit (forgot to mention): After that reset command you have to use the --force option to push (e.g. git push --force).

Thanks! After trying these hints out, they look like they would require me to dive into git command-line wizardry.
I'll definitely come back to this when I have more time, or start a new pull request altogether, now that I know what I wanted to do in the first place.

primeos · 2017-02-26T13:29:32Z

Please don't merge this - it conflict's with #12940 and there hasn't been any discussion yet!

Just wanted to make sure anyone is aware of this as I can't see how we (currently) can merge them both. I encourage anyone to compare them and decide which one we use (or we could probably use parts from both). I don't really have much time ATM but I created the following issue to share some of my thought/ideas: #23181

alexanderkjeldaas · 2020-07-28T17:14:57Z

@primeos I think specifying both full iptables rules as well as supporting CIDR-style fw rules should be supported.

I don't think the two PRs are in conflict as they are at two different abstraction levels.

However, regarding this PR, I think the abstraction presented is slightly too complex. It should be to be able to represent a firewall for incoming/outgoing connections to services mostly.

I think the rules used on AWS is a reasonable abstraction, see https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/new-descriptions-for-security-group-rules/

Thus:

Separate inbound and outbound rules
Inbound rules are what people will usually care about, so that simplifies documentation
For inbound rules, don't allow specifying sport, it's very rarely needed. Or as a minimum, use port to designate the local service port.
Likewise for outbound rules, we only care about the local service port in this abstraction. Thus no dport and sport, only port is used.
Don't specify ipv4 or ipv6. This should be derived from the syntax for the host/cidr.

Anything more complex should use the mechanisms in issue #12940

primeos · 2020-07-28T20:41:17Z

@alexanderkjeldaas uh, sorry about my participation here. I don't remember this PR (only vaguely that I used to try to improve the firewalling situation on NixOS) but scrolling through the rest of this PR it looks like I did a bad job at reviewing it (requesting a lot of nitpick changes first and then suddenly raising concerns about conflicts with another PR - I hope that I at least had an explanation for that at the time... :o). Sorry if this was frustrating for anyone.

Personally I had high hopes for improving the firewalling situation but eventually gave up due to too many edge cases, backends (iptables vs. nftables), design decisions, etc. (e.g. atomic firewall updates would be nice but unfortunately that would break a lot of tools that interfere with the firewall like Docker, LXD, libvirt, ...). Therefore I'm also not sure if trying to implement a complex firewall module is a good idea and feasible to maintain.

Anyway, feel free to just ignore what I said here ;) IIRC I haven't really looked back at our firewalling situation since then and I'm not familiar with our current situation (implementation/PRs/plans/issues/etc.).

Finer-grained firewall: allow specific hosts, allow to disable the ss…

6c43d68

…h "allow all"

edolstra reviewed Feb 9, 2017

View reviewed changes

Mic92 requested changes Feb 9, 2017

View reviewed changes

edolstra reviewed Feb 9, 2017

View reviewed changes

Finer-grained firewall rules, second attempt.

5da578d

Mic92 reviewed Feb 9, 2017

View reviewed changes

Replacing "if" by "optionalString"

2060825

primeos requested changes Feb 9, 2017

View reviewed changes

P-E-Meunier added 3 commits February 9, 2017 17:00

Hopefully better style.

c55880b

Even more style

4f203bd

Firewall: A few examples

8aeaf75

edolstra reviewed Feb 9, 2017

View reviewed changes

P-E-Meunier added 5 commits February 9, 2017 21:22

Merge branch 'master' of git://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs

5677c04

modules/sshd: firewallOpenPorts -> openInFirewall

20dc8f1

sshd: did not compile

0872e73

Merge branch 'master' of git://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs

a3133f9

Firewall: address families (incorrect firewall code)

d503e79

joachifm reviewed Feb 10, 2017

View reviewed changes

Firewall: string -> str

27ce317

primeos mentioned this pull request Feb 12, 2017

Firewall: Add support for arbitrary rules for input, output and forward #12940

Closed

P-E-Meunier added 3 commits February 13, 2017 19:53

top-level/rust-packages: update to 2017-02-13

db8d11e

Merge branch 'master' of git://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs

9215385

Finer-grained firewall: allow specific hosts, allow to disable the ss…

77ee320

…h "allow all"

P-E-Meunier added 10 commits February 13, 2017 19:57

Finer-grained firewall rules, second attempt.

ce8f425

Replacing "if" by "optionalString"

fdac4be

Hopefully better style.

e036c45

Even more style

9504ce9

Firewall: A few examples

7c6b061

modules/sshd: firewallOpenPorts -> openInFirewall

ea14eac

sshd: did not compile

7277ca0

Firewall: address families (incorrect firewall code)

b2d7740

Firewall: string -> str

72c75e7

Merge github.com:P-E-Meunier/nixpkgs

d30cd1b

primeos mentioned this pull request Feb 25, 2017

[RFC] Modularize the firewall and nixify the rules #23181

Closed

Mic92 reviewed Feb 26, 2017

View reviewed changes

Nadrieril mentioned this pull request Apr 20, 2017

nixos/{firewall,nat}: Standardize around an iptables-restore / nftables solution #4155

Open

joachifm added the 6.topic: nixos label Jun 16, 2017

P-E-Meunier closed this Nov 2, 2017

Janik-Haag added the 12. first-time contribution label Jun 12, 2023

Finer-grained firewall: allow specific hosts, in particular to SSH #22586

Finer-grained firewall: allow specific hosts, in particular to SSH #22586

Conversation

P-E-Meunier commented Feb 9, 2017 • edited Loading

Motivation for this change

Things done

mention-bot commented Feb 9, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

edolstra Feb 9, 2017 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

edolstra Feb 9, 2017 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Mic92 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Mic92 commented Feb 9, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Mic92 Feb 9, 2017 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Mic92 Feb 9, 2017 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Mic92 Feb 12, 2017 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

primeos left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

joachifm Feb 10, 2017 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Mic92 commented Feb 12, 2017 • edited Loading

danbst commented Feb 20, 2017

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Mic92 Feb 26, 2017 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

primeos Feb 26, 2017 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

primeos commented Feb 26, 2017

alexanderkjeldaas commented Jul 28, 2020

primeos commented Jul 28, 2020

P-E-Meunier commented Feb 9, 2017 •

edited

Loading

edolstra Feb 9, 2017 •

edited

Loading

edolstra Feb 9, 2017 •

edited

Loading

Mic92 Feb 9, 2017 •

edited

Loading

Mic92 Feb 9, 2017 •

edited

Loading

Mic92 Feb 12, 2017 •

edited

Loading

joachifm Feb 10, 2017 •

edited

Loading

Mic92 commented Feb 12, 2017 •

edited

Loading

Mic92 Feb 26, 2017 •

edited

Loading

primeos Feb 26, 2017 •

edited

Loading