similar to: [Bug 469] New: recent match doesn't triger with --hitcount > 20

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=469 netfilter@linuxace.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |netfilter@linuxace.com Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|

Hello, up to CentOS 5.3 it was possible, to control new ip connections by "recent", "seconds" and "hitcount" -A INPUT -m state --state NEW -m recent --set -p tcp --dport 80 -A INPUT -m state --state NEW -m recent --update --seconds 60 --hitcount 1000 -p tcp --dport 80 -j LOG --log-prefix "FW DROP IP Flood: " -A INPUT -p tcp -m tcp --dport 80 -m state

Hello, I have well performing iptables in centos 5.2 and 5.3 : -A INPUT -m state --state NEW -m recent --update --seconds 60 --hitcount 1000 -p tcp --dport 25 -j LOG --log-prefix "FW DROP IP Flood: " Centos 5.5, updated today: Without -hitcount : iptables accept the line Including -hitcount : iptables brings an error message: Applying iptables firewall rules: iptables-restore:

Hello, all. I read this document about iptables recent module. http://blog.andrew.net.au/2005/02/16#ipt_recent_and_ssh_attacks and I would like to filter the excessive spam mail sending ip address by iptables recent module. and some questions. iptables -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 25 -m state --state NEW -m recent --set --name SPAM iptables -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 25 -m state --state NEW -m

Is the maximum permitted value for --hitcount documented anywhere? I reliably get a iptables-restore error when I specify a hitcount value greater than 20 but I cannot find any mention of there being a maximum value. -- *** E-Mail is NOT a SECURE channel *** James B. Byrne mailto:ByrneJB at Harte-Lyne.ca Harte & Lyne Limited

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/cgi-bin/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83 Summary: Owner matching support broken in Kernel 2.4.20 Product: iptables userspace Version: 1.2.7a Platform: i386 OS/Version: Debian GNU/Linux Status: NEW Severity: blocker Priority: P2 Component: iptables AssignedTo:

This was sent to me regarding the wiki. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Martin Kon??ek" <mkonicek12 at gmail.com> Date: Mar 7, 2013 4:44 AM Subject: mistake on Securing SSH To: <timothy.ty.lee at gmail.com> Cc: Hi TImothy, I saw wiki http://wiki.centos.org/HowTos/Network/SecuringSSH and it is pretty good, but there is a mistake. *Instead of having* iptables

I added these rules to IPTABLES to slow brute force attacks. iptables -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 22 -s my_subnet/24 -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 22 -m state --state NEW -m recent --set --name SSH iptables -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 22 -m state --state NEW -m recent --update --seconds 60 --hitcount 5 --rttl --name SSH -j DROP I would like log entries when connections are dropped to see

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=527 Summary: the check make target has a greedy debug grep Product: iptables Version: unspecified Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: unknown AssignedTo: laforge@netfilter.org ReportedBy:

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=471 Summary: UDP stream DNAT problem Product: netfilter/iptables Version: linux-2.6.x Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: NAT AssignedTo: laforge@netfilter.org ReportedBy:

Hello everybody For network simulation purposes I am trying to run a Linux image with a PAX enabled grsec kernel on a Gentoo xen-3.1.1 with HVM. While the image boots flawlessly on real hardware the kernel does not really like the fully virtualized Xen/Qemu environment. It does not succeed to boot (for dmesg see attachment). I first tried with the grsec- patched 2.6.14.6 sources but it

I''ve found the below rule, is it possible to use it with shorewall? I see how to setup the timing/rates but how to perform loggin of such action (a separate rule?). as an additional question is i possible to dynamically add hosts to blacklist and persist this between restarts? " SSH -A PREROUTING -m tcp -p tcp -d $EXTERNAL --dport 22 -m recent --rcheck --hitcount 3 --seconds 600 -j

may be this url can help https://icecast.imux.net/viewtopic.php?p=7084&sid=6ce1e17b6ad49e0a24be0e60b526f760 " [image: Post] <https://icecast.imux.net/viewtopic.php?p=7579&sid=149783b084f48b41a22bfe472e82d97a#7579>Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 12:14 pm Post subject: [image: Reply with quote]

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=447 Summary: iptables doesn't support multiple times the same match in one rule Product: iptables Version: 1.3.5 Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: major Priority: P2 Component: iptables AssignedTo:

Alright, I have setup the new rules and am waiting to see if I have any issues. If I do, I will keep working on it. I also read the article below, which mentions exactly what you I was told about 2008 and newer using different ports. https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/929851 Here is the new configuration: root at dc01:~# iptables -S -P INPUT DROP -P FORWARD DROP -P OUTPUT ACCEPT -A INPUT -m

Hi, I''ve attached a patch which fixes a logging problem with log_rule_limit in custom actions. E.g. this action: ,----[ Whitelist ] | if [ -n "$LEVEL" ]; then | run_iptables -N ${CHAIN}Add | log_rule_limit $LEVEL ${CHAIN}Add WhitelistAdd DROP "$LOG_LIMIT" $TAG | run_iptables -A ${CHAIN}Add -j DROP | run_iptables -N ${CHAIN}Del | log_rule_limit

Hi After several days testing and studing howtos and docu again ... I want to limit all tcp trafic with the limit module to say one connection per second except some known trafic. (This is because of using p2p progs gets mi crazy which gets my adsl modem down and I share my net with some users and because of encryption of stream l7 does not work ...) As I understand the limit module does work

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/cgi-bin/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58 email@cs-ware.de changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED Resolution|FIXED | ------- Additional Comments From email@cs-ware.de 2003-06-01

Server software firewall cannot help with ddos attacks. Basically if those are indeed ddos attacks you’ll have to look into mitigation solutions which are quite expensive. CloudFlare won’t work as well since they do not support streaming. You should consider getting a server at a data center which provide ddos mitigation, I know that OVH’s mitigation is quite good. בתאריך יום ג׳, 5 ביוני 2018

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/cgi-bin/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94 laforge@netfilter.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Severity|major |normal Component|netfilter hooks |ip_tables (kernel) ------- Additional Comments From