similar to: [Fwd: [PATCH] IPSET parsing buglet]

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

After I''ve played with ipsets for several days, I''m beginning to become disenchanted with the way the SAVE_IPSETS=Yes works. I spent almost an hour configuring a bunch of ipsets to be just the way that I wanted them only to wipe them out with a "shorewall restart" :-( So, I think that I will change the implementation as follows: a) The ipset contents will only be

http://shorewall.net/pub/shorewall/2.3/shorewall-2.3.0 ftp://shorewall.net/pub/shorewall/2.3/shorewall-2.3.0 WARNING: This is a development release and may be unstable New Features in version 2.3.0 1) Shorewall 2.3.0 supports the ''cmd-owner'' option of the owner match facility in Netfilter. Like all owner match options, ''cmd-owner'' may only be applied to

This is the latest development release and may be found at: http://shorewall.net/pub/shorewall/2.3/shorewall-2.3.1 ftp://shorewall.net/pub/shorewall/2.3/shorewall-2.3.1 This release changes the way that SAVE_IPSETS=Yes works to try to make it harder to shoot yourself in the foot. Read the release notes carefully. In addition, there are two problems corrected: 1) A typo in the

Adam Chapman wrote: > > If I can show that the problem exists from the shorewall startup script > are you interested in the problem then? > I have replied to Adam off-list about this but let me say publicly that I don''t believe that this can be solved in the init scripts in any general way. Adam says: > I''d like to not have to rely on a domain name to get

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

Sorry for the back-to-back releases but there have been quite a few bugs found in 3.0.0 so it seems like a good idea to make 3.0.1 available now. Problems Corrected in 3.0.1 1) If the previous firewall configuration included a policy other than ACCEPT in the nat, mangle or raw tables then Shorewall would not set the policy to ACCEPT. This could result in a ruleset that rejected or

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

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:

-----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

Thanks for such a quick reply Tom! Any suggestions then as to what I might do other than putting a second nic in the SBS and opening it up for web access? I don''t like the idea, but since MS SBS includes fireall that is actually what MS suggests. Boyd -----Original Message----- From: Tom Eastep [mailto:teastep@shorewall.net] Sent: January 3, 2005 3:05 PM To: Shorewall Users Cc: Boyd

Plus I would like to let you know that it works like a charm. Snort can now see those packets. -----Original Message----- From: shorewall-users-bounces@lists.shorewall.net [mailto:shorewall-users-bounces@lists.shorewall.net] On Behalf Of Thibodeau, Jamie L. Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 9:25 AM To: Mailing List for Shorewall Users Subject: RE: [Shorewall-users] Shorewall and an inline

In policy $FW Net ACCEPT Dump.rar join THX -----Message d''origine----- De : shorewall-users-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net [mailto:shorewall-users-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net] De la part de Tom Eastep Envoyé : jeudi 12 octobre 2006 21:22 À : Shorewall Users Objet : Re: [Shorewall-users] Tc rules Help with multiISP + squid& squidguard... Joffrey FLEURICE wrote: > > >

The following is taken from the Release notes for 2.2.3 (which will be released in a month or so). 2) There has been ongoing confusion about how the /etc/shorewall/routestopped file works. People understand how it works with the ''shorewall stop'' command but when they read that ''shorewall restart'' is logically equivalent to ''shorewall

Laurent Moix wrote: > Hi, > > I try to install shorewall 2.2 on suse 9.2. > > # rpm -ivh --nodeps /root/shorewall-2.2.1-1.noarch.rpm > Preparing... ########################################### [100%] > 1:shorewall ########################################### [100%] > shorewall: unknown service > shorewall: not a runlevel service > >

Tomorrow morning, the following systems will be unavailable while I upgrade the OS on my firewall: a) shorewall.net b) lists.shorewall.net c) cvs.shorewall.net d) rsync.shorewall.net The upgrade will begin around 0700 PST (-0800) and will like take two hours or so. Sorry for the inconvenience. -Tom -- Tom Eastep \ Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool Shoreline, \

Hi Tom, Many thanks for that, that''s really helped. Netfilter is indeed dropping the packets as invalid. Thanks and regards, Frances -----Original Message----- From: Tom Eastep [mailto:teastep@shorewall.net] Sent: 23 March 2007 18:05 To: Shorewall Users Subject: Re: [Shorewall-users] Expected handling of [SYN] when expecting[SYN, ACK]? Frances Flood wrote: > Basically, if the

In my SuSE updates this morning, I found "Bug fixes for i810/Radeon graphics drivers"... -Tom -- 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

.... I need a break. Happy New Year, -Tom -- 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