similar to: Routing problem on a Masquerading Firewall

Hello all, I’m currently trying to figure out how to forward ports to guests that are on a NAT Network. I have followed the directions on https://wiki.libvirt.org/page/Networking under the “Forwarding Incoming Connections” Section and get connection refused when attempting to connect. System: Ubuntu Server 18.04.1 Virsh / LibVirtd Version: 4.0.0 Here’s the contents of /etc/libvirt/hooks/qemu  

In the panic of replacing our firewall(s) earlier in the week, we ended up moving our original shorewall 1.4 config onto a machine with 2.0.10 already installed, overwriting all the 2.0.10 config files. Most things seem to work fine, except for our masq entries. I''ve examined the default 2.0.10 files compared with our 1.4 files, and can''t spot the problem. What am I missing?

Hi everybody I have a Problem with Masquerading from my local net (loc) to my VPN (loc2). I can reach every Service from loc2 in loc, but I can''t get reach any service from loc in loc2. Has somebody an Idea where my mistake is ? Without shorewall, it was working. Thanks for helping Lars Technical Information : Shorewall 2.0.13 Suse 9.0 *177.177.77.X The first 3 Counts are changed

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1147 Bug ID: 1147 Summary: iptables rule to match a 'set' shows [unsupported revision] Product: iptables Version: unspecified Hardware: x86_64 OS: Debian GNU/Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P5

I have problem getting answer on http request from all my local subnets but not from local subnet. Ping and requests on ports 21 22 23 25 110 works fine. I logged port 80 in rules files and I got accept entry same for local subnet and other subnets. Local subnet is 192.168.6 Dec 29 09:52:40 zinfsrv2 kernel: Shorewall:loc2fw:ACCEPT:IN=eth0 OUT= MAC=00:09:6b:07:ca:cc:00:10:b5:fa:bd:71:08:00

Hello, my current network setup looks like the following: dom2-eth0 (172.30.1.22) netmask /24 | | xen-br1 (no ip) | dom1-eth0 (172.30.1.21) netmask /24 dom1-eth1 (172.30.0.21) netmask /24 | | xen-br10 (172.30.0.1) netmask /24 | dom0 | | xen-br0 (normal IP) | eth0 (same IP as xen-br0) |

Hi, I have a suspicious problem with multiple uplinks configuration. First of all my configuration: 1) kernel 2.6.20.3 2) iptables 1.3.7 3) last iproute (for masked marks) All wan interfaces are bridged (stp disabled) in only one interface (wan0), all lan interfaces are bridged (stp enabled) in only one interface (zlan0). The wan0 bridge is to allow UPnP works. To allow related

Hi, I have a install of shorewall I have 2 interfaces(I think) ppp0[connection device] and eth0 [LAN device], I want to allow all traffic from the the internet in or aleast port 80 and CVS and webmin and mail and everything normal to the main machine with shorewall on it. I changed to policy file but it just gave me errors as to double interfaces. I also what still to alow connection sharing

I have two VMs, both with firewalld installed. One on machine It this in the IN_public chain: Chain IN_public (2 references) pkts bytes target prot opt in out source destination 81 3423 IN_public_log all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 81 3423 IN_public_deny all -- * * 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0

Hi! I want to forward the port 3389 from the domU to the virtual server with ip address 192.168.122.77 with not success... I tried a lot of iptables rules with no luck so far. Is this possible? I take a look at other post and I don''t found an answer. By example: /sbin/iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p tcp -i xenbr0 --dport 3389 -j DNAT --to 192.168.122.77:3389 the virtual nic for the

Hi List, I am running into a problem where I have 2 interfaces bridged with and ip address assigned. I have another interface in which traffic has ingress traffic that needs to go out the bridged interface. I am trying unsuccessfully to SNAT the traffic leaving the bridge interface to its assigned address. # brctl show xbrdg0 bridge name bridge id STP enabled interfaces

Hi, I am wondering if it is possible to do the following with shorewall. I operate a network with some additional IP''s that are SNAT''d to various server machines on my network. One of my machines is a Terminal server. I need to be able to RDP to various servers for clients, that are IP locked for RDP on my PtP address, not the SNAT address of my Terminal server. Can I

Hi folks, Has anyone tested the changes to multiple ISPs/load balancing or routestopped in 2.4.0-RC1 yet? We need to talk about what criteria we will use for determining whether 2.4.0 is ready for release. I''ve started configuring a firewall at work with the multiple ISPs support, but its kernel doesn''t have connection marking support, so it''s going to be a couple of

Hi, I have a big "name problem" with my internal mail server (10.0.0.152). It is "seen" on the internet through DNAT (213.58.230.27). Also there is a MX record pointing to the machine. Everything works fine from the outside. However i can''t set the mail clients on the lan pointing to the mx record, because this one points to 213.58.230.27 and the firewall

I''m attempting to setup Squid as shown on: http://shorewall.sourceforge.net/Shorewall_Squid_Usage.html#DMZ The firewall is a Bering 1.0 firewall running Shorewall 1.3.11, Red Hat 7.2 on the server in the DMZ. I''m not seeing the requests come in to the server using tcpdump. The server is 192.168.2.1 connecting to eth2 on the firewall, the local traffic I''m trying to

Hello! I am using shorewall shorewall-2.0.11-1 on fedora core2 (iptables-1.2.9-95.7). My box has 2 physical nic´s plus one virt. ipsec interface for a freeswan-vpn connection. A few days ago, portsentry spit out a lot of connections from windows clients (port 135, 445). Ooops. I review my shorewall settings but could not find a mistake. So I took a win-client and established a second

I am setting to a shorewall system with 4 NIC''s as per the outline specification below. Can anyone please have a look and let me know what I have missed and what I have got wrong as I want to take this system live ASAP but do not want to kill internet access and the hosting for too long ! I have listed below the system outline & have attached the config files that I have changed, if

Good day to all. I don''t like to Post unless I am really stuck. Guess what? Redhat with Shorewall. Been using this for years. I have a new client that we have setup with Redhat and Shorewall. The problem is that his outside address (ETH0 = NET) is dynamic (i.e. DHCP enabled). All the rules work fine when we use a STATIC address on Eth0, so we know the rules, filters, tos etc work fine

I apologize for the first message. :) --------------------------------------- I have an FTP server running in the DMZ section of my home network. It uses port 23000 for connection and ports 19990 to 19994 for data transfer. I have setup the following rule for outside people to connect to it: DNAT net dmz:192.168.2.2 tcp 23000 I''m at work right now and I can''t use

Hi all, I have a problem to get my Linux machine to masquerade for other computers on the network. My main machine is connect to the ADSL modem on eth0. The machine also has another network card, eth1 which connects directly to the other computer. Both machines can ping each other fine, but I can''t access the net from the other (Windows) system. IP Configuration on the linux