How harmful are these error messages?

[SystemFailureNet]

Hello,

My router is functioning well, as far as I can tell. It is configured to connect on both IPv4 and IPv6, with loglevel = error. In the logs, there are a bunch of lines with these two error messages + IP addresses (mostly IPv4):

20:51:53@85/error - SSU2: Send exception: Permission denied to X.X.X.X:PORT

and

18:34:53@992/error - NTCP2: RouterInfo verification failed in SessionConfirmed from Y.Y.Y.Y:PORT

Some of these IP addresses appear quite frequently, like every 10-15 minutes or so.

I wonder if they might belong to buggy, outdated or even malicious peers?

If so, would it be a good idea to block traffic to or from these addresses at the firewall level?

Thanks for your insights, as I don't really understand the meaning of these error messages 😅

[Vort]

What version of i2pd do you use?

SSU2: Send exception: Permission denied is a strange one. I never saw it.
I saw similar messages regarding address 0.0.0.0 and only with old versions of i2pd.

RouterInfo verification failed is common thing.

I wonder if they might belong to buggy, outdated or even malicious peers?

Most likely, it happens because of bugs.

Some of these IP addresses appear quite frequently, like every 10-15 minutes or so.

If so, would it be a good idea to block traffic to or from these addresses at the firewall level?

Few wrong packets per hour won't make much difference.
In case of an attack there would be a millions of them.

[SystemFailureNet]

What version of i2pd do you use?

I'm running i2pd-2.55.0 on OpenBSD.

SSU2: Send exception: Permission denied is a strange one. I never saw it.
I saw similar messages regarding address 0.0.0.0 and only with old versions of i2pd.

My router is configured to use my public IPv4 and IPv6, and definitely not 0.0.0.0.

Few wrong packets per hour won't make much difference.
In case of an attack there would be a millions of them.

Makes sense. Thank you for your answer.

[VasiliyMooduckovich]

idk should i start a new discussion or just bump this one, so be it here then: i've removed the code considering GOST encryption cipher suites from Identities and SAM files, then i've build it and it even runs and appears to be working, but now i got those messages like that guy has, these Garlic: can't handle ECIES-X25519-AEAD-Ratchet message so i guess it has to do something with that because i get it that some other i2pd routers send to my router encrypted messages that encrypt with those GOSTR algorithms that i've removed and mine router can't handle those messages, so is this safe to run this custom build i2pd router or should i just go with the java one if I'm worry about those FSB approved algorithms?!