similar to: Semi-OT: fail2ban issue

This should probably be a bug report for the fail2ban EPEL maintainer, the problem was introduced in version 0.9.3 >From the file /etc/fail2ban/action.d/iptables-common.conf ... # Option: lockingopt # Notes.: Option was introduced to iptables to prevent multiple instances from # running concurrently and causing irratic behavior. -w was introduced # in iptables 1.4.20, so

In article <1446132814771.22431 at slac.stanford.edu>, Eriksson, Thomas <thomas.eriksson at slac.stanford.edu> wrote: > This should probably be a bug report for the fail2ban EPEL maintainer, the problem was introduced in version 0.9.3 > > >From the file /etc/fail2ban/action.d/iptables-common.conf > ... > # Option: lockingopt > # Notes.: Option was introduced to

P? Tue, 31 Dec 2019 18:53:38 +0000 John H Nyhuis <jnyhuis at uw.edu> skrev: > Just a random stab in the dark, but CEntOS6 was iptables, and CentOS7 > is firewalld. They take different fail2ban packages. > > CentOS6 = fail2ban > CentOS7 = fail2ban-firewalld > > Are you sure you are running the correct fail2ban package for your > firewall? (I screwed this up myself

I have fail2ban on my mail server monitoring Dovecot and Exim. I have noticed that it has stopped banning IP's. I have seen in /var/log/fail2ban.log: 2020-04-07 09:42:05,875 fail2ban.filter [16138]: INFO [dovecot] Found 77.40.61.224 - 2020-04-07 09:42:05 2020-04-07 09:42:06,408 fail2ban.actions [16138]: NOTICE [dovecot] Ban 77.40.61.224 2020-04-07 09:42:06,981

I am working to a CentOS 6 server with nonstandard iptables system without rule for ACCEPT ESTABLISHED connections. All tables and chains empty (flush by legacy custom script) so only filter/INPUT chain has rules (also fail2ban chain): Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination f2b-postfix tcp -- 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0 ACCEPT all --

On Feb 26, 2020, at 08:52, Nicolas Kovacs <info at microlinux.fr> wrote: > >> Le 26/02/2020 ? 11:51, Nicolas Kovacs a ?crit : >> SELinux is preventing /usr/bin/python2.7 from read access on the file disable. >> ***** Plugin catchall (100. confidence) suggests ***** >> If you believe that python2.7 should be allowed read access on the disable file by default.

Hi, I'm running CentOS 7 on an Internet-facing server. SELinux is in permissive mode for debugging. I've removed FirewallD and replaced it with a custom-made Iptables script. I've also installed and configured Fail2ban (fail2ban-server package) to protect the server from brute force attacks. Out of the box, Fail2ban doesn't seem to play well with SELinux. Here's what I

Hi, Some time ago I had SELinux problems with Fail2ban. One of the users on this list suggested that it might be due to the fact that I'm using a bone-headed iptables script instead of FirewallD. I've spent the past few weeks getting up to date with doing things in a more orthodox manner. So currently my internet-facing CentOS server has a nicely configured NetworkManager, and

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 Mon, December 18, 2017 3:06 am, Alex JOST wrote: > Did you enable the dovecot service in fail2ban? By default all jails are > disabled. > > /etc/fail2ban/jail.conf: > [dovecot] > enabled = true Alex, thanks no, not in jail.conf, I've put it in the (1) /etc/fail2ban/jail.local I've also added postfix, that seems to work: I've made test failed dovecot and

Hi! Am 09.04.20 um 10:07 schrieb Rob Kampen: [...] > I too had fail2ban fail after an otherwise successful yum update. Mine occurred in Feb when my versions of firewalld etc were updated to the versions you show. Thus far I have not had the opportunity to sort the problem. Lockdown has been quite busy so far, hopefully some slower times coming next week. Yeah, those pesky real-life biological

> > > > /var/log/fail2ban.log is showing that it's working: > > I have seem similar odd behaviour with f2b with other filters. > Try to uninstall the package > fail2ban-systemd > and stop and start fail2ban again. > This might change its behavior to the better. > The fail2ban-systemd package configures fail2ban to use systemd journal for log input. The OP

Hi all... Recently a new Fail2Ban was available among some other updates for my Centos 7 system, and I just updated all. It seems that was a very BAD idea. Just noticed that Fail2Ban have generated a 6MB error log because of the update, and FirewallD a 1MB log of errors ! (not sure if any of those were really working after this) ok, I'll just run yum downgrade fail2ban I thought. Naa, no

Is anyone using asterisk with fail2ban? I have it working except it takes way more break-in attempts than what is set in "maxretry" in jail.conf For example, I get an email saying: "The IP 199.204.45.19 has just been banned by Fail2Ban after 181 attempts against ASTERISK." when "maxretry = 5" in jail.conf Perhaps someone else is experiencing this or has resolved it,

On Fri, May 22, 2020 2:05 pm, Adi Pircalabu wrote: > On 22-05-2020 10:38, Voytek Eymont wrote: > > Hardly a Dovecot issue. Can you please post the output of this command? > /usr/bin/fail2ban-regex /var/log/dovecot.log > /etc/fail2ban/filter.d/dovecot.conf Adi, thanks, what I get is: # /usr/bin/fail2ban-regex /var/log/dovecot.log /etc/fail2ban/filter.d/dovecot.conf Running

I am trying to understand what is the difference between linear and polynomial kernel: linear: u'*v polynomial: (gamma*u'*v + coef0)^degree It would seem that polynomial kernel with gamma = 1; coef0 = 0 and degree = 1 should be identical to linear kernel, however it gives me significantly different results for very simple data set, with linear kernel

Hello list I've been studying libvorbis code and found a strange fragment in smallft.c: 38 static void drfti1(int n, float *wa, int *ifac){ 39 static int ntryh[4] = { 4,2,3,5 }; 40 static float tpi = 6.28318530717958648f; 41 float arg,argh,argld,fi; 42 int ntry=0,i,j=-1; 43 int k1, l1, l2, ib; 44 int ld, ii, ip, is, nq, nr; 45 int ido, ipm, nfm1; 46 int nl=n; 47 int nf=0;

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1298 Bug ID: 1298 Summary: Issue with REJECT in custom chains Product: nftables Version: unspecified Hardware: x86_64 OS: Debian GNU/Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P5 Component: iptables over nftable Assignee: pablo

On 4/7/20 11:54 AM, Gary Stainburn wrote: > I have fail2ban on my mail server monitoring Dovecot and Exim. > > I have noticed that it has stopped banning IP's. I have seen in /var/log/fail2ban.log: > > 2020-04-07 09:42:05,875 fail2ban.filter [16138]: INFO [dovecot] Found 77.40.61.224 - 2020-04-07 09:42:05 > 2020-04-07 09:42:06,408 fail2ban.actions [16138]:

Le 26/02/2020 ? 11:51, Nicolas Kovacs a ?crit?: > SELinux is preventing /usr/bin/python2.7 from read access on the file disable. > > *****? Plugin catchall (100. confidence) suggests?? ***** > > If you believe that python2.7 should be allowed read access on the disable file > by default. > Then you should report this as a bug. > You can generate a local policy module to