similar to: Your Bugzilla bug list needs attention.

[This e-mail has been automatically generated.] You have one or more bugs assigned to you in the Bugzilla bug tracking system (http://bugzilla.netfilter.org/) that require attention. All of these bugs are in the NEW or REOPENED state, and have not been touched in 7 days or more. You need to take a look at them, and decide on an initial action. Generally, this means one of three things: (1) You

[This e-mail has been automatically generated.] You have one or more bugs assigned to you in the Bugzilla bug tracking system (http://bugzilla.netfilter.org/) that require attention. All of these bugs are in the NEW or REOPENED state, and have not been touched in 7 days or more. You need to take a look at them, and decide on an initial action. Generally, this means one of three things: (1) You

http://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=715 Summary: nfq_nfnlh() and nfq_fd() should have const arguments Product: libnetfilter_queue Version: unspecified Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: enhancement Priority: P5 Component: libnetfilter_queue AssignedTo: netfilter-buglog

http://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=748 Summary: Range check for ulog-cprange is wrong Product: iptables Version: unspecified Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P5 Component: iptables AssignedTo: netfilter-buglog at lists.netfilter.org ReportedBy:

http://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=800 Summary: sk_buff.transport_header set incorrectly for NF_IP_PRE_ROUTING hook Product: netfilter/iptables Version: linux-2.6.x Platform: x86_64 OS/Version: Ubuntu Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P5 Component: netfilter hooks

http://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=752 Summary: ipq_read() will return an error (rc = -1) and the error message says "Received truncated message" Product: iptables Version: 1.3.5 Platform: i386 OS/Version: RedHat Linux Status: NEW Severity: critical Priority: P1

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=701 Phil Oester <netfilter at linuxace.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC| |netfilter at linuxace.com Resolution|

http://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=760 Summary: nf_ct_sip dropping SIP messages larger then MTU Product: netfilter/iptables Version: linux-2.6.x Platform: i386 OS/Version: Ubuntu Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P5 Component: ip_conntrack AssignedTo: netfilter-buglog at

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=554 ------- Additional Comments From fhagur@gmail.com 2007-04-17 05:04 MET ------- I have been wondering about this bug and had similar problems myself here in my Debian system, linux-kernel 2.6.18 iptables 1.3.6. I too saw that some packets became transmitted illegally through the ppp0 interface, when they just shoudn't. What I

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=498 cfilin@intermedia.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |chip@innovates.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1410 Bug ID: 1410 Summary: STATELESS, rules with notrack into a map Product: nftables Version: unspecified Hardware: x86_64 OS: Debian GNU/Linux Status: NEW Severity: enhancement Priority: P5 Component: nft Assignee: pablo at

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=963 Summary: nfq_udp_get_payload and nfq_udp_get_payload_len return wrong results Product: libnetfilter_queue Version: unspecified Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P5 Component: libnetfilter_queue

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=851 Summary: IPv6 SNAT target with --random doesn't work Product: netfilter/iptables Version: unspecified Platform: x86_64 OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P5 Component: NAT AssignedTo: netfilter-buglog at lists.netfilter.org

http://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=743 Summary: Errors in compiling nfqnl_test.c Product: netfilter/iptables Version: linux-2.6.x Platform: All OS/Version: Ubuntu Status: NEW Severity: enhancement Priority: P5 Component: netfilter hooks AssignedTo: netfilter-buglog at lists.netfilter.org

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=554 ------- Additional Comments From kaber@trash.net 2007-03-15 02:53 MET ------- Most likely these packets are considered invalid by connection tracking and therefore not handled by NAT. Try this: iptables -t mangle -A POSTROUTING -m state --state INVALID -j DROP -- Configure bugmail:

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=921 Summary: log, ulog and nflog: command-line parameters are not supported Product: nftables Version: unspecified Platform: x86_64 OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P5 Component: nft AssignedTo: pablo at

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1255 Bug ID: 1255 Summary: nftables SNAT is not working Product: nftables Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: NEW Severity: critical Priority: P5 Component: kernel Assignee: pablo at netfilter.org

This question is not about linux usage. But still i think user list is a good crowd for linux programmer. So here it goes. I have this libnetfilter_queue application which receives packets from kernel based on some iptables rule. Before going straight to my problem, i'm giving a sample workable code and other tools to set up a test environment so that We problem definition and possible

hi, in the masq file''s documentation, there is a sentence: "If you have a static IP on that interface, listing it here makes processing of output packets a little less expensive for the firewall." this realy means that SNAT to the primary address is less expensive than a MASQ rules in the netfilter? is this documented anywhere in iptables/netfilter? thanks. -- Levente

I''m havign a HUGE amount of difficulty getting shoreline to work with LVS. We use it here constantly so we know it works. The problem is packets come in, get directed to a webserver, webserver returns the packet to firewall, and then it goes into a black hole. rp_filter is off globally on all interfaces. LVS seems to be working right.... I use shorewall tcrules to mark packets on