similar to: openvpn and firewalld

On Fri, May 8, 2015 12:06, Bowie Bailey wrote: > > Replying to myself here, I finally figured out how to do it with > direct rules. Firewalld on CentOS 7 defaults to a drop rule for > the FORWARD chain which my previous server didn't have. So I > needed to put the rules in the FORWARD chain rather than the > INPUT chain. > This does not make sense to me. The INPUT,

How do I insert the iptables rule below using firewalld? I'm moving up from CentOS 6 to 7 on an office gateway and I'm trying to get OpenVPN working to allow home workers to access PCs at the office. I've got it all working but only by manually inserting an ACCEPT rule in the FORWARD iptables chain: iptables -I FORWARD 3 -i tun+ -j ACCEPT This rule was extracted from my iptables

Le 29/12/2017 ? 10:32, Kenneth Porter a ?crit?: > How do I insert the iptables rule below using firewalld? > > I'm moving up from CentOS 6 to 7 on an office gateway and I'm trying > to get OpenVPN working to allow home workers to access PCs at the > office. I've got it all working but only by manually inserting an > ACCEPT rule in the FORWARD iptables chain: >

After a recent large update, firewalld's status contains many lines of the form: WARNING: COMMAND_FAILED: '/usr/sbin/iptables... Checking iptables.service status shows it to be masked. I realize that firewalld uses iptables, but should it be enabled and started as a service? Jon -- Jon H. LaBadie jcu at labadie.us 11226 South Shore Rd. (703) 787-0688 (H)

On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Kenneth Porter <shiva at sewingwitch.com> wrote: > How do I insert the iptables rule below using firewalld? > > I'm moving up from CentOS 6 to 7 on an office gateway and I'm trying to > get OpenVPN working to allow home workers to access PCs at the office. I've > got it all working but only by manually inserting an ACCEPT rule in

W dniu 29.12.2017 o?10:32, Kenneth Porter pisze: > How do I insert the iptables rule below using firewalld? > > I'm moving up from CentOS 6 to 7 on an office gateway and I'm trying > to get OpenVPN working to allow home workers to access PCs at the > office. I've got it all working but only by manually inserting an > ACCEPT rule in the FORWARD iptables chain: >

Once upon a time, Jonathan Billings <billings at negate.org> said: > 'iptables' and 'nftables' are competing technologies. In CentOS 8, > firewalld's backend was switched from iptables to nftables. So it > would be expected that the iptables command wouldn't have any rules > defined, it isn't being used by firewalld. That is partially incorrect.

Despite that the migration of our applications comes with a significant workload. It seems that also every aspect of common services had changed with EL8. In EL8 firewalld uses nftables as backend. I wonder why iptables does not list any rules while also configured to use nftables as backend. # iptables -V iptables v1.8.2 (nf_tables) # firewall-cmd --list-all |egrep -o '22|ssh' ssh

Hi Earl, >The problem is you added the rule in runtime and when you reloaded it >removed the rule that you added; therefore you need to use --permanent >or >do not reload. Thanks! That worked. [root at appd:~] #firewall-cmd --zone=home --list-ports [root at appd:~] #firewall-cmd --zone=home --add-port=8181/tcp --permanent success [root at appd:~] #firewall-cmd --reload success [root

On CentOS 7 with firewalld I have a box with numerous interfaces acting as a NAT gateway. This works but I noticed that it routes/forwards traffic not just from my internal zone to external zone but also between interfaces within the internal zone. How can I prevent that traffic? I've tried adding direct and rich rules to deny the traffic but it doesn't work. Direct: firewall-cmd

On Thursday 21 of April 2016 2:37:49 PM Gordon Messmer wrote: > On 04/21/2016 01:33 PM, Marcin Trendota wrote: > > It's OpenVPN on chamber. > What port is it using? I don't see the standard port listed in your > firewalld rules in either zone. 1194/udp. I added service openvpn and port 1194/udp (just to be sure) to both zones - no change. [root at chamber openvpn]#

On 08/27/2015 03:29 AM, Rowland Penny wrote: > On 27/08/15 05:20, Robert Moskowitz wrote: >> Now with firewalld, opening up ports is now 'better' done by opening >> services. So what do I need, for starters it seems: >> >> dns, dhcp, dhcpv6, samba, kerberos >> >> Here is the list of services: >> >> RH-Satellite-6 amanda-client bacula

Hi! I have a server running CentOS 7.7 (1908) with all current patches installed. I think this server should be a quite standard installation with no specialities On this server I have fail2ban with an apache and openvpn configuration. I'm using firewalld to manage the firewall rules. Fail2an is configured to use firewalld: [root at server ~]# ll /etc/fail2ban/jail.d/ insgesamt 12

On 27/08/15 13:50, L.P.H. van Belle wrote: > After reading this thread.. and ..seeing the comments.. > > I googled a bit around. and yes.. more then 5 sec.. ;-) > > I wonder why almost every "centos/redhat/rpm based" howto removes firewalld with the base iptables service Now here's a funny thing, I was searching the samba wiki for 'firewall' and found there

Hello I have an asterisk 16.2.1 on an ubuntu on AWS, which is experiencing a drop in call. It does not have a certain time, it is random. The audio is flowing normally and the call is dropped. Has anyone ever experienced this? My settings changed below: allowoverlap = no udpbindaddr = 0.0.0.0 tcpenable = no tcpbindaddr = 0.0.0.0 transport = udp, ws, wss srvlookup = yes directmedia = no

mDNS is not DNS mDNS (zeroconf/avahi) ( used for .local and .lan reserved tlds ) is an apple thingy.. mDNS udp 5353 DNS tcp/udp 53. Yes, dns tcp + udp. If and dns udp package is to large it switches to tcp. got that from wiets ( the postfix developer ) So i must believe him.. wiets is great.. ( and dutch ) :-)) Greetz, Louis >-----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- >Van: samba

Progress... On 08/27/2015 08:50 AM, L.P.H. van Belle wrote: > After reading this thread.. and ..seeing the comments.. > > I googled a bit around. and yes.. more then 5 sec.. ;-) > > I wonder why almost every "centos/redhat/rpm based" howto removes firewalld with the base iptables service > now, i'm not "pro" systemd or con systemd, i use it but i set my

On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 03:14:12PM -0700, Warren Young wrote: > On Dec 14, 2018, at 2:30 PM, Jon LaBadie <jcu at labadie.us> wrote: > > > > After a recent large update, firewalld's status contains > > many lines of the form: > > > > WARNING: COMMAND_FAILED: '/usr/sbin/iptables? > > What?s the rest of the command? Well, there are about 20 of

Oh, this really helps. See below, though. On 08/27/2015 09:33 AM, Rowland Penny wrote: > On 27/08/15 14:25, Robert Moskowitz wrote: >> Progress... >> >> On 08/27/2015 08:50 AM, L.P.H. van Belle wrote: >>> After reading this thread.. and ..seeing the comments.. >>> >>> I googled a bit around. and yes.. more then 5 sec.. ;-) >>>

Hello. Thanks for the reply. Yes. In the traffic analyzed, the BYE is sent by the originator of the call, but there is no "human" hangup, but the asterisk one. BYE is sent, received and confirmed. I don't know how I could investigate the reason for this BYE. Em 21/09/2020 17:12, Dovid Bender escreveu: > Is there anything in the Asterisk logs? Which side sends the BYE? Were