similar to: iptables - how to block established connections with fail2ban?

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

On a CentOS 6.7 system that's been running fail2ban for a long time, we recently started seeing this: ct 28 19:00:59 <servername> fail2ban.action[17561]: ERROR iptables -w -D INPUT -p tcp --dport ssh -j f2b-SSH#012iptables -w -F f2b-SSH#012iptables -w -X f2b-SSH -- stderr: "iptables v1.4.7: option `-w' requires an argument\nTry `iptables -h' or 'iptables --help' for

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

Hello list. I have a question for fail2ban for bad logins on sasl. I use sasl, sendmail and cyrus-imapd. In jail.conf I use the following syntax: [sasl-iptables] enabled = true filter = sasl backend = polling action = iptables[name=sasl, port=smtp, protocol=tcp] sendmail-whois[name=sasl, dest=my at email] logpath = /var/log/maillog maxretry = 6 and the following filter:

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

Hi, I realise that one can simply start fail2ban and then it will insert its own ruleset before shorewall''s ruleset. Are there subscribers to this list having alternative (and probably better) ways to use both fail2ban and shorewall? Thanks, Mark ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF email is sponsosred by: Try Windows Azure free for 90

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'm trying to setup and test fail2ban with dovecot I've installed fail2ban, I've copied config from https://wiki2.dovecot.org/HowTo/Fail2Ban, and, trying to test it, attempted multiple mail access with wrong password, but, get this: # fail2ban-client status dovecot-pop3imap Status for the jail: dovecot-pop3imap |- Filter | |- Currently failed: 0 | |- Total failed: 0 | `- File

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]:

I'm running fail2ban to attempt to block malicious brute-force password dictionary attacks against ssh. They seem to be rolling through a block of ip addresses as the source to defeat this kind of screening, so I've set some ip addresses to be blocked in iptables. Here is the output of iptables -L (edited): Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination

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

On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 14:06, Jonathan Billings <billings at negate.org> wrote: > 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)