similar to: [Bug 917] New: Kernel OOPS on Kernel 3.14.2

Il giorno lun, 02/09/2019 alle 08.26 +0100, Rowland penny via samba ha scritto: > > set 01 22:36:56 s-addc.studiomosca.net named[639]: samba_dlz: > > cancelling transaction on zone studiomosca.net > > That is showing that a client isn't being allowed to update a record. Is it possible to cure it in some way? > > [2] ----[smb.conf] > > > Please do not post

On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 at 06:01, likun <kun.li at ucarinc.com> wrote: > Hi?guys. > > There is a wierd problem with iptables recently, hopes somebody can help > me. > > I have installed Centos 7.2.1511 on a bare metal Dell server these days, > disabled firewalld and enabled iptables.services, and setup a group of very > simple rules, as the following: > > I believe

Hi, Over the past few days I've been trying to get a prototype working of a stateful firewall for a Virtual Machine using Libvirt's network filters. My goal is to replace the current custom Python/Java code in the Apache CloudStack [0] project by Network Filters of Libvirt. Both IPv4 and IPv6 should work, but I started off with IPv4 and I have issues with accepting back

Hello, I'm having problem setting up filtering traffic for a virtual machine managed by libvirt. Strange thing is, such a setup has been working fine for me on an older version of distro (namely, opensuse 11.3 w/updates, kernel 2.6.34, libvirt 0.8.8) but refused to work on shiny new opensuse 12.4 (kernel 3.7.10, libvirt 1.0.2). The definition of filter in question is pretty simple:

Rowland, Did some editing in smb.conf that I had to reverse. Now I'm back to being able to connect with the firewall disabled. When I enable the firewall I get as far as windows network -> workgroup but no connection. I have only the rules you recommended in your last email. Louis, The information you requested is below: martin at radio:~$ dpkg -l|egrep "iptables|ufw" ii 

Hello, Stephen, thank you for input. Yes, these servers have the same firewall rules, and both of them have the same problem from time to time, most of time they are good. Actually, these servers are newly installed to be used as the Glusterfs storage server, so not much data flowing at this time. >From the sysctl output, I suppose it can't be a conntrack table overflow :

Rowland, OK. Should I delete these lines? diff yours mine 63d62 yours# -A ufw-after-logging-output -m limit --limit 3/min --limit-burst 10 -j LOG --log-prefix "[UFW ALLOW] " 85,87d83 yours# -A ufw-before-logging-forward -m conntrack --ctstate NEW -m limit --limit 3/min --limit-burst 10 -j LOG --log-prefix "[UFW AUDIT] " yours# -A ufw-before-logging-input -m conntrack

On Wed, 6 Feb 2019 16:05:40 -0500 Martin McGlensey via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > Rowland, > > Did some editing in smb.conf that I had to reverse. Now I'm back to > being able to connect with the firewall disabled. When I enable the > firewall I get as far as windows network -> workgroup but no > connection. I have only the rules you recommended in

Hi?guys. There is a wierd problem with iptables recently, hopes somebody can help me. I have installed Centos 7.2.1511 on a bare metal Dell server these days, disabled firewalld and enabled iptables.services, and setup a group of very simple rules, as the following: # iptables-save # Generated by iptables-save v1.4.21 on Tue Apr 23 09:15:14 2019 *filter :INPUT ACCEPT [0:0] :FORWARD ACCEPT

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1423 Bug ID: 1423 Summary: iptables-translate silently discards --ctstate DNAT Product: nftables Version: unspecified Hardware: x86_64 OS: Debian GNU/Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P5 Component: iptables over nftable

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=874 Summary: Any conntrack conditions specified with --ctstate INVALID are not checked Product: iptables Version: 1.4.x Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P5 Component: iptables AssignedTo:

Yes, Try this ( copy past-able. ) ufw disable ufw reset ufw limit 22/tcp ufw allow in proto tcp from any port 389,1024:65535 to any port 1024:65535 ufw allow 139,445/tcp ufw allow 137,138/udp ufw --force enable Sorry for the late reply, but im bit busy with some servers here. Greetz, Louis > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: samba [mailto:samba-bounces at lists.samba.org]

Louis, Made the changes. Still unable to mount office. Firewall also blocks Thunderbird mail and maybe internet. Will check that more fully later.Any thoughts ob Tony's response? Outputs: martin at radio:/etc$ sudo apt-get install ufw Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree Reading state information... Done The following packages were automatically installed and are no

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=696 --- Comment #3 from Alessandro Vesely <vesely at tana.it> 2013-06-21 15:50:56 CEST --- (In reply to comment #2) > you have to put this REJECT rule before any RELATED/ESTABLISHED > conntrack ctstate match rules (which is suboptimal). No, I can use conntrack -D to have the connection unESTABLISHED. In general, it is polite to send a

http://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=712 Summary: iptables-save does not save correcly rateest bps parameter Product: iptables Version: unspecified Platform: x86_64 OS/Version: Debian GNU/Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P5 Component: unknown AssignedTo:

My firewall and asterisk pjsip config only has "permit" options for my ITSP's (SIP trunk) IPs. Here's the script that sets it up. -------------------------------------------------- #!/bin/bash EXIF="eth0" /sbin/iptables --flush /sbin/iptables --policy INPUT DROP /sbin/iptables --policy OUTPUT ACCEPT /sbin/iptables -A INPUT -i lo -j ACCEPT /sbin/iptables -A INPUT -m

On 04/11/2017 04:16 PM, Alice Wonder wrote: > Hi, I would like to see this addressed. > Is there a firewalld solution to this issue? Yes: # Disable connection tracking for UDP DNS traffic # https://kb.isc.org/article/AA-01183/0/Linux-connection-tracking-and-DNS.html firewall-cmd --permanent --direct --add-rule ipv4 filter INPUT 0 -m conntrack --ctstate UNTRACKED -j ACCEPT firewall-cmd

If I've missed someone's response, apologies. As I said, my converted rules seem fine, and I can run the script that issues a bunch of direct rules for the built-in FORWARD rule... but when I try firewall-cmd --reload, it tells me error, that FORWARD is a built-in. Now, today, what I've been looking at is to run iptables-save, and what I see is this (in part): -A FORWARD -m conntrack

Dear libvirt users, I am encountering problems with network connections from VMs while running net-update on the host. I would be very grateful for suggestions of fixes or workarounds. I am using libvirt in the context of an automated test system which creates and destroys VMs fairly rapidly, hence network updates occur often. ## Reproducer The issue can be reproduced as follows. Run in a VM:

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