similar to: fail2ban firewalld problems with current CentOS 7

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

On Monday 29 April 2019 02:21:05 Gordon Messmer wrote: > That's one approach.? I believe that you could modify fewer files by > setting "port = 0:65535" in your definition in "jail.local" and not > install firewallcmd-ipset.local. I have just tried this, and re-started fail2ban. It does not seem to have worked. I have looked at /var/log/exim/main.log and found

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

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.

On Mon, March 9, 2015 13:11, John Plemons wrote: > Been working on fail2ban, and trying to make it work with plain Jane > install of Centos 7 > > Machine is a HP running 2 Quad core Xeons, 16 gig or ram and 1 plus TB > of disk space. Very generic and vanilla. > > Current available epel repo version is fail2ban-0.9.1 > > Looking at the log file, fail2ban starts and stops

> On 26 Jul 2017, at 7:57 pm, Olaf Hopp <Olaf.Hopp at kit.edu> wrote: > > Dear collegues, > > many thanks for your valuable input. > > Since we are an university GEO-IP blocking is not an option for us. > Somestimes I think it should ;-) > > My "mistake" was that I had just *one* fail2ban filter for both cases: > "wrong password" and

On 13/04/20 1:30 pm, Orion Poplawski wrote: > On 4/9/20 6:31 AM, Andreas Haumer wrote: > ... >> I'm neither a fail2ban nor a SELinux expert, but it seems the >> standard fail2ban SELinux policy as provided by CentOS 7 is not >> sufficient anymore and the recent updates did not correctly >> update the required SELinux policies. >> >> I could report this

From: bounces at isc.sans.edu To: sbradcpa at pacbell.net <sbradcpa at pacbell.net> Novel method for slowing down Locky on Samba server using fail2ban https://isc.sans.edu/diary.html?n&storyid=20805 http://www.heise.de/security/artikel/Erpressungs-Trojaner-wie-Locky-aussperren-3120956.html Google Translate version of above: If you teach the Samba server to monitor and write Rename

Hello, fail2ban does not ban offending IP. NOTICE[29784] chan_sip.c: Registration from '"user3"<sip:1005 at asterisk-ip:5060>' failed for 'offending-IP:53417' - Wrong password NOTICE[29784] chan_sip.c: Registration from '"user3"<sip:1005 at asterisk-ip:5060>' failed for ?offending-IP:53911' - Wrong password systemctl status

Dear collegues, many thanks for your valuable input. Since we are an university GEO-IP blocking is not an option for us. Somestimes I think it should ;-) My "mistake" was that I had just *one* fail2ban filter for both cases: "wrong password" and "unknown user". Now I have two distinct jails: The first one just for "wrong password" and here the findtime,

Hi to all, @Olaf Hopp I've this filter enabled for fail2ban, my question is: could my filters overlap or interfere with those suggested by you? this is my filter: Contents of /etc/fail2ban/jail.conf: [postfix] # Ban for 10 minutes if it fails 6 times within 10 minutes enabled = true port = smtp,ssmtp filter = postfix logpath = /var/log/mail.log maxretry = 6 bantime = 600

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

If this is a small site, I recommend you download the free version of SecAst (www.telium.ca <http://www.telium.ca> ) and replace fail2ban. SecAst does NOT use the log file, or regexes, to match etc.instead it talks to Asterisk through the AMI to extract security information. Messing with regexes is a losing battle, and the lag in reading logs can allow an attacker 100+ registration

Send CentOS-announce mailing list submissions to centos-announce at centos.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-announce or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to centos-announce-request at centos.org You can reach the person managing the list at centos-announce-owner at centos.org When

I am seeing these in the log of one of our off-site NX hosts running CentOS-6.6. type=AVC msg=audit(1421683972.786:4372): avc: denied { create } for pid=22788 comm="iptables" scontext=system_u:system_r:fail2ban_t:s0 tcontext=system_u:system_r:fail2ban_t:s0 tclass=rawip_socket Was caused by: Missing type enforcement (TE) allow rule. You can use

On 05/17/2018 11:38 AM, Frank Vanoni wrote: > On Thu, 2018-05-17 at 11:18 -0400, sean darcy wrote: > >> 3. How do I set up the server to block these ? >> >> 4. Can I stop the retransmitting of the 401 Unauthorized packets ? > > I'm happy with Fail2Ban protecting my Asterisk 13. Here is my > configuration: > > in /etc/asterisk/logger.conf: > >

CentOS Errata and Bugfix Advisory 2020:0844 Upstream details at : https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2020:0844 The following updated files have been uploaded and are currently syncing to the mirrors: ( sha256sum Filename ) x86_64: c00490e2d307df37a1d4aec5a2c1c94e89a9a6d0aec252e04fa3319155df8dbe libipa_hbac-1.16.4-21.el7_7.3.i686.rpm

Send CentOS-announce mailing list submissions to centos-announce at centos.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-announce or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to centos-announce-request at centos.org You can reach the person managing the list at centos-announce-owner at centos.org When

For dovecot 2.1 as per wiki2, is this still valid? noticed a problem before and saw it does seem to be triggering, I use: maxretry = 6 findtime = 600 bantime = 3600 and there was like, 2400 hits in 4 minutes, it is pointing to the correct log file, but I am no expert with fail2ban, so not sure if the log format of today is compatible with the wiki2 entry filter.d/dovecot.conf [Definition]

> On 10 Mar 2015, at 14:30, James B. Byrne <byrnejb at harte-lyne.ca> wrote: > > > On Mon, March 9, 2015 13:11, John Plemons wrote: >> Been working on fail2ban, and trying to make it work with plain Jane >> install of Centos 7 >> >> Machine is a HP running 2 Quad core Xeons, 16 gig or ram and 1 plus TB >> of disk space. Very generic and vanilla.