similar to: Re: [Shorewall-users] Common Rules

John, I''m taking the liberty of copying the Shorwall Development list since I believe that these issues will be of interest. On Tue, 6 Aug 2002, Links at Momsview wrote: > Tom, > I''m not sure if you ever saw this document but it describes some of the > reasons you are seeing strange packets > after setting up NEW not SYN >

This is a minor release of Shorewall which rolls up a number of bug fixes. New features include: 1) The new "Shorewall Setup Guide" is included in this release. This guide is intended for users who have multiple static external IP addresses and for users who what to learn a bit more abound Shorewall than is described in the single-address guides. 2) Shorewall now drops

This is a minor release of Shorewall which rolls up a number of bug fixes. New features include: 1. A NEWNOTSYN option has been added to shorewall.conf. This option determines whether Shorewall accepts TCP packets which are not part of an established connection and that are not ''SYN'' packets (SYN flag on and ACK flag off). 2. The need for the

Right, time to (as someone said) put this thread to a proper rest. Some of you have probably read my VPN/Routing/Lost packages hassles in the last week, well, here is the rundown. Look at http://statler.mupp.net/shorewall/Layout.jpg Basically. The shorewall knows the route to the .224.0/24 net is through .221.221. The systems in .221.0/24 has the FW as their default gw. The FW could reach

Hi, I''m running shorewall-2.0.8-1mdk with iptables-1.2.9-7.1.101mdk on kernel-2.4.22-30mdk, Mandrake 10.1 (kernel-2.6.8.1.10mdk-1-1mdk is installed, but I haven''t rebooted yet). I get a significant number of newnotsyn packet denials from existing, valid connections. Most of these seem to be on port 80 and port 25, and directionality doesn''t seem to matter (I run

Hi, I have shorewall version 1.4.10g on Redhat 9 Local clients are on eth1 in subnet 192.168.3.0/24. eth0 is for the outside (over xdsl with includes a ppp0 interface). Nessus (nessusd) is installed *on the firewall* and managed trough nessus (the client or frontend) running on one of the internal machines. When I was running a scan against 194.152.181.36 I observed several entries like

at least once a week I receive such an attack coming from a different ip. I will read the articles. Thanks again to everyone. Regards, Rodrigo Lang. 2010/6/29 Kenny Watson <kwatson at geniusgroupltd.com> > Hi, you can use fail2ban >

Dear All, After installing Shorewall, on a router with 4 NIC, seems running ok. Next day, when connecting from clients, (MS) we keep getting ip conflict for non-conflicting ip addresses. Any help is appreciated. Detals of Startup: + shift + nolock= + ''['' 1 -gt 1 '']'' + trap ''my_mutex_off; exit 2'' 1 2 3 4 5 6 9 + command=start +

Hello, I''ve been doing some tests on a firewall system running Shorewall 1.4, and have been getting some unexpected behavior when enabling the "newnotsyn" option. In the test setup, I have: ---------------------------------------- /etc/shorewall/interfaces net eth0 detect routefilter,tcpflags,blacklist loc eth1 10.0.0.255 dhcp,tcpflags,newnotsyn

I have what strikes me as an odd problem with shorewall. Let me describe my setup. My desktop (alfred) is connected to the network through an ADSL modem. I am running rp-pppoe, and this works perfectly. I have a small home network, with two LANs; an Ethernet LAN (including a machine running Windows XP), and a WiFi LAN, including the laptop (william) I am using now. All the computers except for

I have implemented the ability to specify ''all'' in the SOURCE and DESTINATION columns of the rules file and I''m not sure I like the result. The code is in CVS if any of you are interested in giving it a try. If you do try it, please let me know what you think. If you specify ''all'' in those columns it must not be qualified (may not be followed by

Hi Guys, I need some help. I''ve been using shorewall for a while now and it''s been running beautifully, but I''m now experiencing some problems. It seems that connections are getting dropped much like the behavior described by the NEWNOTSYN=no option in the shorewall.conf file, but I have NEWNOTSYN=Yes in my file. The messages I see in my logs are things like:

This is a bug-fix roleup together with changes to the way ICMP is handled= =2E 1) The ''icmp.def'' file is now empty! The rules in that file were required in ipchains firewalls but are not required in Shorewall. Users who have ALLOWRELATED=3DNo in shorewall.conf should see the Upgrade Issues. 2) A ''FORWARDPING'' option has been added to shorewall.conf.

In this release: 1. Whitelist support has been added. 2. Optional SYN Flood protection is now available. 3. Aliases added under ADD_IP_ALIASES and ADD_SNAT_ALIASES now use the VLSM and broadcast address of the interface''s primary address. 4. Port forwarding rules may now optionally override the contents of the /etc/shorewall/nat file. -Tom -- Tom Eastep \ Shorewall -

I have /bin/ash from rh8 installation and I have following error when I tried to change using ash instead of sh with shorewall-1.4.7: + eval options=$tap0_options + options= + list_search newnotsyn + local e=newnotsyn + [ 1 -gt 1 ] + return 1 + run_user_exit newnotsyn + find_file newnotsyn + [ -n -a -f /newnotsyn ] + echo /etc/shorewall/newnotsyn + local user_exit=/etc/shorewall/newnotsyn + [

This is becoming a FAQ and should probably be added to the docs. Thanks, -Tom -- Tom Eastep \ Shorewall - iptables made easy AIM: tmeastep \ http://www.shorewall.net ICQ: #60745924 \ teastep@shorewall.net ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 16:09:01 -0700 (Pacific Daylight Time) From: Tom Eastep <teastep@shorewall.net> To: Carl Spelkens

---------- Forwarded Message ---------- Subject: Re: [Shorewall-users] strange UDP scan results on a Shorewall=20 firewall Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 08:33:20 -0800 From: Tom Eastep <teastep@shorewall.net> To: "Scott Duncan" <sduncan@cytechconsult.com> On Saturday 02 March 2002 04:30 am, Scott Duncan wrote: > Yes, the net->all policy is the same on all three (REJECT log

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Hi: I have a small infrastructure of network of local area, that are based on a computer, with computer and with a Point Access, with Debian Etch 4.0r1. With Shorewall 3.2.6-2. Well. Since I have two cards of network, which of which, I have left like that: Internet --> Router (217.126.221.65) --> eth1 (217.126.221.117) --> eth0 (LAN

I''m attempting to setup Squid as shown on: http://shorewall.sourceforge.net/Shorewall_Squid_Usage.html#DMZ The firewall is a Bering 1.0 firewall running Shorewall 1.3.11, Red Hat 7.2 on the server in the DMZ. I''m not seeing the requests come in to the server using tcpdump. The server is 192.168.2.1 connecting to eth2 on the firewall, the local traffic I''m trying to

Shorewall 1.3.9 is available. In this release: 1. DNS Names are now allowed in Shorewall config files (I still recommend against using them however). 2. The connection SOURCE may now be qualified by both interface and IP address in a Shorewall rule. 3. Shorewall startup is now disabled after initial installation until the file /etc/shorewall/startup_disabled is removed. 4. The