similar to: use of shell code in shorewall/params

As 2.2.0 is nearing release, I''ve begun to think about what I''ll do for 2.3 and I think that it is time for Shorewall to add support for IPV6. Because of parsing ambiguities, the need to maintain upward compatibility with both Shorewall and 6Wall, and different available functionality in IPV4 and IPV6 Netfilter, I believe that it is going to be necessary for some files to be

Greetings to all of the Shorewall community! We''d like to find out a little more about the environments in which Shorewall runs, and to this end i''ve created a survey. It is mostly designed to allow Shorewall users to see how their environment compares with that of the average Shorewall user (if such a thing exists!), but the results may be used by the Shorewall team to assist

Anyone know how/where we can get some? It has been raised before: http://lists.shorewall.net/pipermail/shorewall-users/2004-July/013594.html I''d like to see an IRC or Jabber service for both support and development. -- Paul <http://paulgear.webhop.net> -- Did you know? OpenOffice.org has built-in PDF creation. Better yet, it''s compatible with Microsoft Office, and

Hi all, I have found problems in p2p traffic detection. The ipp2p module works fine but in shorewall the rules written for this protocols never match because the initials p2p connection (login) match in ''-m state --state RELATED,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT'' rule before ''-m ipp2p --ipp2p -j DROP'' rule, so netfilter never filter p2p traffic. I have had to run

Hi folks, When we first started talking about Shorewall post-Tom, a few people offered to help with testing. Would those people please raise their hands again? :-) I''m investigating Nicolas Helleringer''s recent message on shorewall-users (http://lists.shorewall.net/pipermail/shorewall-users/2005-June/018898.html), and a good test environment would come in really handy,

The 1.2 firewall contains messy logic to support the old sample configurations in that any rule that contains "none" in any of its columns is ignored. I''m considering removing that messiness in 1.3 and seek the opinion of the list. Thanks, -Tom -- Tom Eastep \ Shorewall - iptables made easy AIM: tmeastep \ http://www.shorewall.net ICQ: #60745924 \ teastep@shorewall.net

Hello, Usually when i''ve a hole to poke through firewalls, i have many hosts to update : workstation firewall, lan firewall, the other lan firewall, and the server behind the last firewall. all of them are managed with shorewall... Is there a smart way to update them all at once ? What you guys do on your firewalls ? thanks. -- xavier

Hi All, Just wanted to announce that MyOSS Magazine - Edition 3 (We''re Edition 3!) is now officially hitting the street. This is a community driven project which aims to publish monthly. (Sorry if this is considered as spam). Securing your Network Connection using OpenSSL OpenSSL is a very important protocol in this day and age. The profilteration of the internet has made this

I''m using Shorewall 2.4.0 under Fedora Core 4. I''m using ULOG to log my firewall''s dropped connections, but I want to drop a couple ports silently as they''re taking up too much log space. According to the rules file: "The ACTION may optionally be followed by ":" and a syslog log level (e.g, REJECT:info or DNAT:debug). This causes the packet to

Hi folks, Has anyone out there done port forwarding or DNAT for UDP packets that are normally sent to the broadcast address (255.255.255.255)? I have to support a nasty database application called FileMaker Pro (those of you who know it are probably groaning about now), which uses broadcasts to locate the database server. Theoretically, i can get around this requirement by using LDAP lookups

I believe that 2.4.0 is about ready to be sent out the door. I''ve made a couple of small changes since RC2 but I don''t believe that they warrant another RC. There remains the issue of what to do about support for Shorewall 2.0 given that 2.2 has only been available since March. It would be my recommendation to make 2.4 the new "stable" release but continue to

Hello, With reference to the problems listed below. I too am having incredibly long start up times. I''m talking minutes here (around 5 minutes). My configuration is not complex I don''t think. We are you using ldap too and the settings are bellow. The network is up as I''m restarting shorewall whilst the machine is running. Any suggestions? Is there no way to

Hi, I plug my laptop in different networks and use the following hack to configure automatically shorewall for trusted/untrusted networks: In /etc/shorewall/params: # none is a dummy zone associated to the loopback interface NONE="none:0.0.0.0" # Network scheme, automatically detected by intuitively NETWORK_SCHEME="$(cat /etc/network/scheme 2>/dev/null)" case

I''m beginning to think again about what will be different in 2.0. Here are some thoughts. a) User-defined actions will be emphasized. - A library of actions will be available with names such as: AcceptSSH AcceptDNS DropWindows (drops all SMB noise) DropBroadcasts (Silently drop all Broadcast traffic) ... The possibilities are nearly endless but should

Hi folks, I''ve added a couple of ''help wanted'' ads to our SourceForge project. You can see them at http://sourceforge.net/people/?group_id=22587 I''ll add more as i have the opportunity. If you can think of other jobs we need to assign, please let me know. -- Paul <http://paulgear.webhop.net> -- Did you know? Using accepted quoting conventions makes

Hi folks, I''m conducting a straw poll for your opinions on whether we should send CVS commit logs (probably with diffs) to the shorewall-devel list, or to another (new) list? I can see advantages to both ways: separate lists mean that people who aren''t contributing code don''t get flooded with code noise, but a single list will help keep everyone involved in the

I''m beginning to believe that the use of the last column in the rules file to designate redirection/forwarding is too subtle for many users. For 1.3, I think I''ll do something like the following: Current rule: ACCEPT net loc:192.168.1.3 tcp 80 - all New rule: FORWARD net loc:192.168.1.3 tcp 80 Current rule: ACCEPT net fw::3128 tcp 80 - all New rule: REDIRECT net

Hi folks, Last night and this morning i''ve hacked up a quick web site for coordinating our development work based on Drupal (http://drupal.org). You can find it at: http://shorewall.dyndns.org I''ve put a few ideas in there - feel free to use the comments or sign up for an account and create your own pages (particularly in the two books about development and web site work).

Dear All, Firstly, thank you very much - shorewall is great. I''m not a member of this list, and please forgive me if I am suggesting something stupid, but the following occurs to me, and I thought it might be useful. Why no make it possible to specify zones as well as interfaces in the /etc/shorewall/masq file ? Eg: instead of: eth0 eth1 one might write: net loc (or masq in

Guys, Just a quick check. From what i have read in the shorewall site, intrazone traffic is allowed completely by shorewall i.e. there is no filtering or packet size limiting ,etc,etc. I ask this becos after getting shorewall up and running well, someone has complained that they cannot print pdf files larger than 100k at one go but that they have to print one page at a time. Some details;