search for: ipranges

...tand why this is happening. I''m trying to write a script using ''shorewall iprange'' to parse some ip ranges into subnets so that i can place them into the blocklist. I keep getting an error when i run the script though. Here is the script: #!/bin/csh foreach i (`cat ipranges`) shorewall iprange $i >> /etc/firewall/tools/blacklist/blocklist end Here is the error: : syntax error: operand expected (error token is " ") /sbin/shorewall: line 557: [: 67277280: unary operator expected /sbin/shorewall: line 563: [: 67277280: unary operator expected Here ar...

http://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=742 Summary: ip6tables "-m iprange" ipv6 range detection Product: netfilter/iptables Version: linux-2.6.x Platform: x86_64 OS/Version: SuSE Linux Status: NEW Severity: critical Priority: P5 Component: ip6_tables (kernel) AssignedTo:

http://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=639 Summary: iptables iprange Product: iptables Version: unspecified Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: blocker Priority: P1 Component: iptables AssignedTo: netfilter-buglog at lists.netfilter.org ReportedBy: paulo.santos at

http://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=711 Summary: iptables -m iprange causes unknown error Product: netfilter/iptables Version: linux-2.6.x Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P5 Component: ip_tables (kernel) AssignedTo: netfilter-buglog at

I often find myself doing, whois some.damned.ip.address and then copying and pasting the address range for the miscreant in question, and doing, shorewall iprange x.x.x.x-y.y.y.y with the aim to drop the entire range. My one minor complaint is that I often have to edit out the spaces between the hyphen when copying and pasting the address range returned by whois. I tweaked the shorewall

I would like to add a rule allowing only the address 192.168.150.20 and the range of addresses from 192.169.150.100 to 192.168.150.150 in zone dmz0 to connect to two terminal servers in the local zone. Is there a syntax that can specify a range of addresses in the rules file? Do I have to enter each one separately? -- Stephen Carville Unix and Network Adminstrator DPSI 6033 W.Century Blvd.

Hello list!: Well, I was able to install xen 2.0.7 using a 2.4.30 kernel in a domU. The domU have installed gcc3.4 .. after yum -y install compat-gcc* and put CC=gcc33 in all make commands and other changes as here: http://lists.xensource.com/archives/html/xen-users/2005-08/msg00258.html I''m trying to use the iprange match, but every time when I want apply a rule I receives:

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=922 Summary: iprange: --ports is not suppported Product: nftables Version: unspecified Platform: x86_64 OS/Version: Debian GNU/Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P5 Component: nft AssignedTo: pablo at netfilter.org ReportedBy: anarey

Hi, I have the following problem while activating this rule entry using shorewall-shell: ACCEPT:notice:rul WAN:139.x.x.226 INT:139.x.x.153-139.x.x.156 udp 1024:65535 1024:65535 "-m iprange" in front of "--dst-range" is missing in the activation command. The logging entry (above) is set correct. Below is the debug output. Thanks Regards Günter + case $level in +

Hi, in shorewall version 3.4.8 used this rule to block access to Facebook through port 443 (https): /shorewall/rules: REJECT loc net:69.171.224.12, 69.171.224.0/19,69.63.176.0/20,66.220.144.0/20 tcp 443 What I did was block the public IP network segment to fitthrough https. Now I use this same rule in version 4.4 and I works already. Has anything changed in this

Changes since Beta 1: Problems Corrected: 1. Corrected a problem in Beta 1 where DNS names containing a "-" were mis-handled when they appeared in the DEST column of a rule. New Features: 1. The limit of 256 addresses for an address range has been removed. Shorewall now decomposes the range into an optimal set of network/host addresses (see also the

My home lan is 192.168.174.240/29 so that I have 192.168.174.240 as net, 192.168.174.247 as broadcast and space for 6 hosts (have 2 PC and one router). Now I would like to edit the rfc1918 file in order to exclude this range from the list. What is the way to compute the most compact notation to say that only 192.168.0.0-192.168.174.239 and 192.168.174.248-192.168.255.255 are to be discarded

Ok, I give up. I tried, really hard, before asking but I must be the most stupid shorewall user on the planet :( My laptop runs a single eth0 interface and knows Net and Firewall as zones and the default "inbound" policies are Net->Any DROP and >ny->Any REJECT. Now at home I have my trusted 192.168.174.240/29 subnet which hosts my very trusted 192.168.174.242 host and I

...ll nice but the main benefit of RBL's is always ignored: * centralized * no log parsing at all * honeypot data are "delivered" to any host * it's cheap * it's easy to maintain * it don't need any root privileges anywhere we have a small honeypot network with a couple of ipranges detecting mass port-scans and so on and this data are available *everywhere* so if some IP hits there it takes 60 seconds and any service supportings DNS blacklists can block them *even before* the bot hits the real mailserver at all -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachm...

Shorewall 1.4.6 is now available. Thanks to Francesca Smith, the 1.4.6 Sample configurations are also available. The release is currently available at: http://shorewall.net/pub/shorewall ftp://shorewall.net/pub/shorewall It will be available at the other mirrors shortly. This is a minor release of Shorewall. Problems Corrected: 1) A problem seen on RH7.3 systems where Shorewall encountered

Dear all, after putting up a bridge to be used as a firewall with the following configuration: linux 2.6.4-52-smp kernel bridge-utils 0.9.6-121 Bridge is setup standard with 2 NIC's and STP off. I noticed a strange behaviour; when connecting from an outside machine with the same iprange as the inside machines (a.b.xxx.xxx) I could connect. When trying the same from a non-local

http://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=635 Summary: module owner user is no identified in nfs Product: netfilter/iptables Version: unspecified Platform: i386 OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: blocker Priority: P3 Component: unknown AssignedTo: netfilter-buglog at lists.netfilter.org

Dear All, I try to upgrade, my old shorewall from 4.4.13-3 to 4.5.2.3-1 on CentOS, after upgrade i can''t start shorewall with this message: "/Shorewall: Address Ranges require the Multiple Match capability in your kernel and iptables/" I try to search on the net about this, but no still no light. Somebody can help me? Great appreciate for any help. Regards,

Hello all, It''s my first letter on this list, and, my English is not very well. Please take me indulgence for grammar/syntax and over erorrs :)) I have trouble for acl''s of ip range. But, acl for one host (with ip adress) work fine. Please help me for make work acl/find erorr in acl. Becouse I''m new shorewall user, I maked test configuration on Virtual Mashine

Hello, when deploying drivers via Point-and-Print recent Windows (tested with Windows 10 1607) asks the user to confirm the driver installation. An appropriate Policy [1] is set up so that no user interaction should be required for the driver installation. There are similar reports [2,3] that identify updates KB3163912, KB3172985 and KB3170455 causing these issues. However, Windows 10 1607