similar to: Continuous pings going through a full DROP policy

Hello, all. I was wondering if anyone could help me with this configuration: I had a LDAP tree with this structure: dc=base + ou=unit1 + ou=People + ou=Groups + ou=Computers + ou=unit2 + ou=People + ou=Groups + ou=Computers + ou=unit3 + ou=People + ou=Groups + ou=Computers ... And I need people from unit1 logging on unit2, unit3, etc. First thing is to put all users on one

I have a text file that has semi-colon separated values. The table is nearly 10,000 by 585. The files looks as follows: ******************************************* First line: Skip this line Second line: skip this line Third line: skip this line variable1 Variable2 Variable3 Variable4 Unit1 Unit2 Unit3 10 0.1 0.01 0.001 20

OS: Debian Lenny (kernel 2.6.26-2-686 Shorewall: 4.0.15 (installed from Debian repository) I have an FTP server behind Debian system I am using for a firewall and I am wanting to use Shorewall on it (the Debian firewall). Following the instructions for configuring FTP (at <http://www.shorewall.net/FTP.html>), I have the following rule in my /etc/shorewall/rules file: FTP(DNAT) net

Greetings, I''m new to Shorewall but not to working with Iptables. Shorewall is the simplest firewall front end I have found thus far. I''m currently trying to build a Cfengine policy to maintain Shorewall configurations. My main problem at them moment is confirming that the running iptables rules match what Shorewall originally built. If I understand Shorewall correctly the

When I attempt to start shorewall (version 4.0.15) I get an RTNETLINK error (see below). /var/log/shorewall-init.log [...] 21:02:18 Creating Interface Chains... 21:02:19 Adding Providers... RTNETLINK answers: File exists ERROR: Command "ip route add table 1 129.116.XXX.0/24 dev eth2 proto kernel s cope link src 129.116.XXX.30" Failed 21:02:25 Shorewall-generated routing tables and

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

I am currently using Fedora 16 with the distribution provided shorewall-*-4.4.23.3-6.fc16 packages. shorewall-init seems to be missing a critical file. /lib/systemd/system/shorewall-init.service attempts to call /sbin/shorewall-init, but, /sbin/shorewall-init does not exist. I thought maybe it was a packaging error, so, downloaded the original source, (i.e., shorewall-init-4.4.23.3.tar.bz2), still

Beta 3 is now available for testing. Corrections in this release: 1) Corrections included in Shorewall 4.4.21.1. 2) Several problems reported by Steven Springl. The rest is largely cleanup of the new rule infrastructure. -Tom -- Tom Eastep \ When I die, I want to go like my Grandfather who Shoreline, \ died peacefully in his sleep. Not screaming like Washington, USA \

Beta 3 is now available for testing. Corrections in this release: 1) Corrections included in Shorewall 4.4.21.1. 2) Several problems reported by Steven Springl. The rest is largely cleanup of the new rule infrastructure. -Tom -- Tom Eastep \ When I die, I want to go like my Grandfather who Shoreline, \ died peacefully in his sleep. Not screaming like Washington, USA \

hi Tom I have use Shorewall version 3.4.8 what it would be for me in this rules? > As I can have more than two MAC addresses to apply a rule > in shorewall, I have the following to block port 443: > > > REJECT loc:~00-11-22-33-44-55 net tcp 443 > > > I try this > > > REJECT loc:~00-11-22-33-44-55,~AA-BB-CC-DD-EE-FF net tcp 443 That

I haven''t debugged this enough to understand what is happening, but I observe the following: someipset = bitmap:ip,mac 1) br0:+someipset 2) br0:+someipset[2] The first 1) doesn''t match anything in rules or tcrules, the second 2) matches fine. (Also using +someipset[1] doesn''t match anything) Is it possible/sensible/feasible to have shorewall figure out the

Dear LLVM development team, working with the LLVM gold plugin, I have encountered an unexpected behaviour when the option --allow-multiple-definition (or -z muldefs) is specified for the linker. Let's suppose the following scenario with four simple source files: ----- main.c ------ #include "unit.h" int main() { only_in_unit1(); only_in_unit2(); return

Hi All! I only ever have complex setups. Customer site has a dedicated leased line from their ISP terminating on a Cisco router. Router is configuered with the first usable address on a /28 network - 196.x.y.73. The linux firewall is configured with the remaining 5 ip''s, 196.x.y.74 to 196.x.y.78 and 79 as the broadcast. Sounds normal but here is the twist. The primary or first ip

Okay, so I''m trying to setup my multiple ISP setup that I described earlier. I have: # ip addr 1: lo: <LOOPBACK,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 16436 qdisc noqueue state UNKNOWN link/loopback 00:00:00:00:00:00 brd 00:00:00:00:00:00 inet 127.0.0.1/8 scope host lo inet6 ::1/128 scope host valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever 2: em1: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP>

Hi I have a default route to 192.168.1.1 as soon as I start shorewall the default route dissapear. What do I need to do to have it not disappear. Kind Regards My network setup /etc/network/interfaces: # The primary network interface auto eth0 iface eth0 inet static address 192.168.1.17 netmask 255.255.255.0 network 192.168.1.0 broadcast 192.168.1.255

The Shorewall Team is pleased to announce the availability of Shorewall 4.5.0. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- P R O B L E M S C O R R E C T E D I N T H I S R E L E A S E ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) This release includes all defect repair included in 4.4.27.1-4.4.27.3. 2) The start

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3784 Summary: Showing Progress without being Verbose Product: rsync Version: 3.0.0 Platform: x86 OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: enhancement Priority: P3 Component: core AssignedTo: wayned@samba.org ReportedBy: Tam@SiuLung.com

Hi, I''m running Slackware 13.37 x86 using Shorewall 4.4.21 with OpenVPN and the VPN options I''m using in Slackware 13.37 will not work in Shorewall, but in Slackware 13.1 using the same Shorewall version and files, the ''interfaces'', ''policy'' and ''zone'', are all I have configured, it was working and this also works in Arch at

Hi, I am a new user to R. I am having the following problem while using R: The defined function is having following a$unit as input but if I define a$unit1 then still I am getting the output which is not desired. __________________________ *Function:* testfunction<-function(a){ stopifnot(a$unit==1) cat("All is well") } b<-list(unit1=1 ) testfunction(b)

Hello, I've created several VMs using virt-manager and am using them. This time around though, I'd like to use the CLI approach. The problem resides in defining a storage space. This is using virt-install 1.5.1 on Xubuntu 18.04. For the occasion I created a new directory to store images. So I specify this new directory: virt-install \ --name=arch01 \ --disk