similar to: [Bug 790] Normalize iptables rules

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=790 Andor <tothandor at gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|REOPENED |RESOLVED Resolution| |INVALID --- Comment #9 from Andor <tothandor at

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=790 --- Comment #5 from Andor <tothandor at gmail.com> 2013-06-24 11:34:44 CEST --- ipt1 is an output of a firewall script mainly edited by hand, where parameters order may vary. ipt2 is the output of iptables-save, where parameters are strictly ordered. As written before, the difference in parameter order spoils the comparison of two

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=790 --- Comment #10 from Andor <tothandor at gmail.com> 2013-07-01 16:28:29 CEST --- Pitily netns appeared only after 3.0. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are watching all bug changes.

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=790 Phil Oester <netfilter at linuxace.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |netfilter at linuxace.com --- Comment #4 from Phil Oester <netfilter at linuxace.com> 2013-06-20

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=790 --- Comment #6 from Phil Oester <netfilter at linuxace.com> 2013-06-24 16:13:49 CEST --- Since your script produces the output of ipt1, just make sure you use the same order as iptables-save does. Iptables-save will always output args in the same order. The bug appears to be in the output you are creating, which is beyond our control. --

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=790 --- Comment #8 from Phil Oester <netfilter at linuxace.com> 2013-06-28 17:45:18 CEST --- Have you considered setting up a different network namespace to achieve this? For instance: ip netns add test ip netns exec test iptables-restore < /tmp/ipts ip netns exec test iptables-save This would seem to achieve the results you are looking

Okay here is my setup: Gentoo Box running 2.6.4 w/ 4 NICs 1 NIC is for internal network 3 NICs are for external network The machine has a static address assigned to the internal network nic. This nic runs dhcp and dns forwarding. The other 3 nics have external dynamic IP addresses. All will have the same gateway. There are 3 NICs because this is a very large pipe, that will only allocate a

Hi all I seem to have a very weird problem. I have a gateway that allows me to route into the LAN etc, but for some reason I cant get traffic out. I have apprended a route like below to help me if its getting that far, and it defiantly is. $IPT -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -s 10.0.0.0/24 -j LOG --log-prefix "POST ROUTE: " --log-tcp-options --log-ip-options Feb 18 19:14:16 ukgate

http://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=580 Summary: iptables-restore and iptables-save lack comparison of a saved ruleset against the currently deployed rules Product: iptables Version: unspecified Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: enhancement Priority: P1

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=870 Summary: Iptables cannot block outbound packets sent by Nessus Product: iptables Version: 1.4.x Platform: x86_64 OS/Version: Ubuntu Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P5 Component: iptables AssignedTo: netfilter-buglog at lists.netfilter.org

Hi, I''ve been developing a peer-to-peer application, and have recently been trying to add STUNT (http://www.cis.nctu.edu.tw/~gis87577/xDreaming/XSTUNT/Docs/XSTUNT%20Ref erence.htm) to allow firewall/NAT traversal. I got a box with Shorewall to use for testing, and am now trying to work out whether Shorewall is actually designed to prevent such connections? I notice in the FAQs that

I am having a problem implementing iptables with Courier's pop3 daemon. If I disable iptables, everything works fine. As soon as I enable it, pop3 will stop working for messages over 32K. Small messages will go through with no problems, but large ones will time out. I get this message from OE: "Your POP3 server has not responded in 60 seconds." And an option to stop or continue

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1407 Bug ID: 1407 Summary: Segfault with iptables-nft-restore when flush rules included Product: nftables Version: unspecified Hardware: x86_64 OS: Debian GNU/Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P5 Component:

On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 9:25 PM Phil Perry <pperry at elrepo.org> wrote: > On 16/07/2020 16:48, Kaushal Shriyan wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I am running CentOS Linux release 8.2.2004 (Core) on a remote server. I > am > > running the below iptables command to allow SSH port 22 from a specific > > source IP 219.91.200.59 > > > > iptables -A INPUT -m

John, I''m taking the liberty of copying the Shorwall Development list since I believe that these issues will be of interest. On Tue, 6 Aug 2002, Links at Momsview wrote: > Tom, > I''m not sure if you ever saw this document but it describes some of the > reasons you are seeing strange packets > after setting up NEW not SYN >

Hi, I am running CentOS Linux release 8.2.2004 (Core) on a remote server. I am running the below iptables command to allow SSH port 22 from a specific source IP 219.91.200.59 iptables -A INPUT -m tcp -p tcp -s 219.91.200.59 --dport 22 -j ACCEPT > service iptables save The above iptables ruleset is not working and I am still able to connect from the internet to SSH port 22. I look forward to

current content below is annotated by some suggestions of things to add along with questions for those who know more than I do [in brackets] ================ # iptables -A FORWARD -p tcp --tcp-flags SYN,RST SYN -j TCPMSS --clamp-mss-to-pmtu This calculates the proper MSS for your link. [If I understand the code correctly ... - expert intervention invited] More precisely, this sets the

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1335 Bug ID: 1335 Summary: iptables-restore will crash if -6 rules are present Product: iptables Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: Debian GNU/Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P5 Component: iptables-restore

On 16/07/2020 16:48, Kaushal Shriyan wrote: > Hi, > > I am running CentOS Linux release 8.2.2004 (Core) on a remote server. I am > running the below iptables command to allow SSH port 22 from a specific > source IP 219.91.200.59 > > iptables -A INPUT -m tcp -p tcp -s 219.91.200.59 --dport 22 -j ACCEPT >> service iptables save > > > The above iptables ruleset

On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 2:41 AM Kenneth Porter <shiva at sewingwitch.com> wrote: > --On Thursday, July 16, 2020 10:41 PM +0530 Kaushal Shriyan > <kaushalshriyan at gmail.com> wrote: > > > I have run the below command but I am still able to connect from the > > internet. Do I need to add any drop traffic policy using nft? > > A single rule doesn't tell us