similar to: Fwd: mistake on Securing SSH

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, to prevent scripted dictionary attacks to sshd I applied those iptables rules: -A INPUT -p tcp -m state --state NEW -m tcp --dport 22 -m recent --update --seconds 60 --hitcount 4 --name SSH --rsource -j DROP -A INPUT -p tcp -m state --state NEW -m tcp --dport 22 -m recent --set --name SSH --rsource And this is part of logwatch: sshd: Authentication Failures: unknown

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 I recently tried adding a firewall to my Samba 4 server using the port information I found on the wiki. Below is a dump of the resulting rules. root at dc01:~# iptables -S - -P INPUT DROP - -P FORWARD DROP - -P OUTPUT ACCEPT - -A INPUT -m conntrack --ctstate RELATED,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT - -A INPUT -p tcp -m tcp --dport 22 -m state --state NEW -m

Hello, I would like permission to contribute information to the wiki... Username: CaseyDoyle To append an additional method for ssh blocking with firewallD: Page: https://wiki.centos.org/HowTos/Network/SecuringSSH#head-3579222198adaf43a3ecbdc438ebce74da40d8ec Suggest to add the following info to it pertinent section: ------ 6. Filter SSH at the Firewall complementary to iptables method,

I just looked up 42 and 68. I do not use WINS or BOOTP. I am removing range 1024-5000 and replacing it with 49612-65535 now. I already allowed 389 TCP. Lead IT/IS Specialist Reach Technology FP, Inc On 12/29/2015 03:58 AM, L.P.H. van Belle wrote: > Hai, > > Im missing a few things. > > And maybe time server port to open? Are your dc's time server also? > These are the

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:

My Centos 4.1 only accept connections from localhost, my file conf is default. error: ssh: connect to host 192.168.1.78 port 22: No route to host thanks

HI all, 1st time contributor here. I was using the guide on securing SSH, and noticed that the firewall-cmd snippets for filtering by requests per time seem somewhat outdated. From what I can tell the given snippets, relay arguments directly down to iptables, and do not cover both IPv4 and v6. (and in fact when attempting to extend to v6 the firewall would fail to reload). I came up with an

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1370 Bug ID: 1370 Summary: iptables-restore-translate Product: nftables Version: unspecified Hardware: x86_64 OS: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P5 Component: nft Assignee: pablo at netfilter.org Reporter:

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

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

In there you are almost telling people that security through obscurity is a good way. That might sometimes be true but in this case it could mean that you would be handing passwords and other data out. When you start SSH on port 22 it is done with root privileges because the root user is the only one that can use ports below 1024. Root is the only user that can listen to that port or do

Hi, just a quick note to whoever is maintaining this page: http://wiki.centos.org/HowTos/Network/SecuringSSH The procedure is missing the firewall-cmd calls necessary in EL7: firewall-cmd --add-port 2345/tcp firewall-cmd --add-port 2345/tcp --permanent Also, it may be worth mentioning that semanage is in the policycoreutils-python package, which isn?t installed by default in all stock

Hi, just a quick note to whoever is maintaining this page: http://wiki.centos.org/HowTos/Network/SecuringSSH The procedure is missing the firewall-cmd calls necessary in EL7: firewall-cmd --add-port 2345/tcp firewall-cmd --add-port 2345/tcp --permanent Also, it may be worth mentioning that semanage is in the policycoreutils-python package, which isn?t installed by default in all stock

Thank you, I've gone in and made the listed changes changed firewalld sections to use services instead of just port numbers. -- Kimee On Wed, 2019-04-24 at 17:05 -0700, Akemi Yagi wrote: > On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 12:13 AM Kimberlee Integer Model > <kimee.i.model at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > HI all, > > > > 1st time contributor here. I was using the

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

http://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=772 Summary: Rate Limiting Product: iptables Version: unspecified Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: blocker Priority: P5 Component: unknown AssignedTo: netfilter-buglog at lists.netfilter.org ReportedBy: AsadMoeen at

On 28/12/15 15:33, Ryan Ashley wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA256 > > I recently tried adding a firewall to my Samba 4 server using the port > information I found on the wiki. Below is a dump of the resulting rules. > > root at dc01:~# iptables -S > - -P INPUT DROP > - -P FORWARD DROP > - -P OUTPUT ACCEPT > - -A INPUT -m conntrack --ctstate

On 12/28/2015 10:33 AM, Ryan Ashley wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA256 > > I recently tried adding a firewall to my Samba 4 server using the port > information I found on the wiki. Below is a dump of the resulting rules. > > root at dc01:~# iptables -S > - -P INPUT DROP > - -P FORWARD DROP > - -P OUTPUT ACCEPT > - -A INPUT -m conntrack

Hola lista he estado trabajando el la traducci?n de la pagina de la wiki http://wiki.centos.org/HowTos/Network/SecuringSSH pues estuve hablando con Alain Reguera y me dijo que pusiera las traducciones que hiciera ac? para que lo revisaran, bueno no se como funciona bien esta lista pero ah? les mando la traducci?n para que la revisen y me den sus opiniones y despu?s me digan como hago para ponerla