similar to: Bridge Example

"Dark Ryder" has reported a bug in Shorewall 1.4.7; this bug is also present in Shorewall 1.4.8. The effect of the bug is that in DNAT rules that specify SNAT, the SNAT address can be effectively ignored in some cases. I have created corrected versions of the ''firewall'' script for both 1.4.7 (based on 1.4.7c) and 1.4.8; these corrections may be downloaded from the

A number of you are flailing around trying to get the subject combination to work. You should all be aware that there are parts of this that don''t currently work and that won''t work well until there are enhancements made to Shorewall (and probably to Netfilter). I. There is no clean way currently to support Road Warriors from a Masquerading Netfilter firewall/gateway. As

For those of you running SuSE 9.1, I do not recommend upgrading to 9.2 at this time. Refer to http://shorewall.net/myfiles.htm for information on my configuration: a) On Ursa: 1) After the upgrade, both of the NICs were recognized as "configured" in YAST yet neither of them would start; ifup claimed that no configuration could be found for either interface. Only got them running

FYI... ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- Subject: RE: [Shorewall-users] 2.6 kernel ipsec and shorewall Date: Thursday 23 September 2004 07:44 From: "Jonathan Schneider" <jon@clearconcepts.ca> To: "''Tom Eastep''" <teastep@shorewall.net> I must have been up too late working on this, looking at it the next day I noticed I completely forgot

I''m doing more releases of 1.4.* to try to work around the absurd way in which the 2.6 kernel supports ipsec. 1.4.10 will provide a means for excluding multiple destination hosts/subnets from masquerade/SNAT. -Tom -- Tom Eastep \ Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool Shoreline, \ http://shorewall.net Washington USA \ teastep@shorewall.net

FYI This bug will prevent ''shorewall restore'' from working if you have "!<single IP address>" in the ORIGINAL DEST column. -Tom ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- Subject: [PATCH] Another iptables-save buglet Date: Wednesday 14 September 2005 15:09 From: Tom Eastep <teastep@shorewall.net> To: netfilter-devel@lists.netfilter.org The conntrack

In the Shorewall/ CVS project: Problems Corrected: 1) There has been a low continuing level of confusion over the terms "Source NAT" (SNAT) and "Static NAT". To avoid future confusion, all instances of "Static NAT" have been replaced with "One-to-one NAT" in the documentation and configuration files. 2) The description of NEWNOTSYN in

http://shorewall.net/pub/shorewall/Beta ftp://shorewall.net/pub/shorewall/Beta This is Beta 1 with the following Changes: a) The fix for SNAT in DNAT rules has been included. b) An updated rfc1918 file is included. c) The documentation is no longer part of the base release. Stay tuned for announcements on how the documentation is going to be released. -Tom -- Tom Eastep \ Nothing is

http://shorewall.net/pub/shorewall/Beta ftp://shorewall.net/pub/shorewall/Beta Problems Corrected since version 1.4.8: 1) There has been a low continuing level of confusion over the terms "Source NAT" (SNAT) and "Static NAT". To avoid future confusion, all instances of "Static NAT" have been replaced with "One-to-one NAT" in the documentation and

http://shorewall.net/pub/shorewall/2.2-Beta/shorewall-2.2.0-Beta2 ftp://shorewall.net/pub/shorewall/2.2-Beta/shorewall-2.2.0-Beta2 Problems Corrected: 1. The "shorewall check" command results in the (harmless) error message: /usr/share/shorewall/firewall: line 2753: check_dupliate_zones: command not found 2. The

Hi I have 2nic firewall . I had to open some ranges of udp and tcp ports . I faced a problem that although all the ports are open Some functionality was not working . Any body used shorewall with H323 Voip traffic DNATed . Any help is appretiated . Thanks ----- Original Message ----- From: <shorewall-users-request@lists.shorewall.net> To: <shorewall-users@lists.shorewall.net> Sent:

http://shorewall.net/pub/shorewall/2.2-Beta/shorewall-2.2.0-Beta2 ftp://shorewall.net/pub/shorewall/2.2-Beta/shorewall-2.2.0-Beta2 Problems Corrected: 1. The "shorewall check" command results in the (harmless) error message: /usr/share/shorewall/firewall: line 2753: check_dupliate_zones: command not found 2. The

Shorewall 2.2.0 is expected to be released in the February/March timeframe so it is now time to begin thinking about preparing to upgrade. This is particularly important for those of you still running Shorewall 1.4 since support for that version will end with the release of 2.2. For those of you still running Shorewall 1.4, here are some things that you can do ahead of time to ease the upgrade to

-- Tom Eastep \ Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool Shoreline, \ http://shorewall.net Washington USA \ teastep@shorewall.net PGP Public Key \ https://lists.shorewall.net/teastep.pgp.key

-- Tom Eastep \ Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool Shoreline, \ http://shorewall.net Washington USA \ teastep@shorewall.net PGP Public Key \ https://lists.shorewall.net/teastep.pgp.key

Joshua Schmidlkofer wrote: > Tom Eastep wrote: > >> Joshua Schmidlkofer wrote: >> >>> Tom, >>> >>> Here is the setup method w/ Bridging on Gentoo. >>> >> >> Thanks, Joshua >> >> -Tom > > > Off topic - Has anyone cooked up a good web front end? I am messing w/ > IPCop, because one of my clients uses it.

http://shorewall.net/2.0/bridge.html -Tom -- Tom Eastep \ Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool Shoreline, \ http://shorewall.net Washington USA \ teastep@shorewall.net

While I have concentrated on support for 2.6 native IPSEC in release 2.2.0, I am still of the opinion that unless you absolutely need IPSEC compatibility that OpenVPN is a much easier (and in the case of roadwarriors, a much better) solution. Having already generated all of the required X.509 certificates, it took me less than 1/2 hr to replace my IPSEC testbed with an OpenVPN one using the new

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 As I pointed out to Wilson in a private message, this appears to show that no other connection requests (other than port 3000) are being sent from the client to the server (or at least no other connection requests are being received by the Shorewall box). Wilson: Are you sure that the client is supposed to open port 3001 on the server and not the

The Bridging code is at ftp://shorewall.net/pub/shorewall/Bridging. The README.txt provides information about how to use the code. It has been lightly tested under SuSE 9.0 with a 2.4.25 kernel. I found that I had to rebuild iptables with the 2.4.25 kernel headers before I could get Shorewall to start. -Tom -- Tom Eastep \ Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool Shoreline, \