similar to: Shorewall 1.4.9 Beta1

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

Shorewall 1.4.9 is now available. http://shorewall.net/pub/shorewall/shorewall-1.4.9 ftp://shorewall.net/pub/shorewall/shorewall-1.4.9 Unless something urgent comes up, this will be the last release of Shorewall 1.x. Release notes are attached. -Tom -- Tom Eastep \ Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool Shoreline, \ http://shorewall.net Washington USA \

I have an ADSL router, a linux box with two NICS connected to the router and another PC connected to the router. I installed shorewall using the two interface method. I can ping and see the webserver on the linux box from the local network, but not from the internet. Sys info as follows: [root@wilma root]# shorewall version 1.4.6b [root@wilma root]# ip addr show 1: lo: <LOOPBACK,UP> mtu

Hello all, Yesterday I noticed that my system was "leaking" traffic towards the 10/8 network, I have shorewall installed on multiple machines ranging from single interface devices to ones with 10+ interfaces. I tested all the boxes and they are showing the same behavior. All systems are CentOS 3.4, 2.4.21-27.0.2.ELsmp. Shorewall version: 2.2.1 For the host mentioned is a single

From the shorewall 1.4.9 Beta 1 News: #Start section 4 4. Support for user defined rule ACTIONS has been implemented through two new files: /etc/shorewall/actions - used to list the user-defined ACTIONS. /etc/shorewall/action.template - For each user defined <action>, copy this file to /etc/shorewall/action.<action> and add the appropriate # here it says to copy the template # to

Hello all: I''ve got a confusing issue. I had a working shorewall configuration (based on the two interface model) using DNAT for redirection to my HTTP server. The HTTP server is on my inside network (I know - bad juju, but one thing at a time). I changed my configuration this morning to use views in my BIND (named) configuration. Everyone outside the firewall is able to get in

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

The first Beta Version is available at: http://www.shorewall.net/pub/shorewall/Beta ftp://ftp.shorewall.net/pub/shorewall/Beta New features include: 1) "shorewall refresh" now reloads the traffic shaping rules (tcrules and tcstart). 2) "shorewall debug [re]start" now turns off debugging after an error occurs. This places the point of the failure near the end of the

Hi, according to: http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space the bogons table is outdated... tha attached patch fixes that... (done against 2.0.1) -- Regards Thomas PS. please CC me as I''m not subscribed to the list -------------- next part -------------- --- usr/share/shorewall/bogons.old 2004-04-19 18:28:00.000000000 +0300 +++ usr/share/shorewall/bogons 2004-04-20

Has anyone encountered a situation where packets dropped by the newnotsyn chain can result in sporadic browsing problems, slowness, and even timeouts? I noticed that of the 3300 hits for newnotsyn in our current log (6 hours worth), over 2700 of them were to/from our proxy servers. And browsing through them, most *appear* to be otherwise valid packets from remote web servers that would have

Hello, I forgot to put my #/etc/shorewall/policy file: # /etc/shorewall/policy ############################################################################### #SOURCE DEST POLICY LOG LIMIT: CONNLIMIT: # LEVEL BURST MASK # adm net DROP info tlm net DROP info # net adm DROP

Hello Tom and others on the list. Tom - you might recall that the other day (night) I had problems with my axip setup (protocol 93) and we made some changes to the policy, zones and interfaces files. You added ''peers and tunl+'' Following that change nothing seemed to work. In fact you wanted to see the shorewall status file, among other things. Well - tonight, I carefully put

I wonder if someone can tell me what these ''unknown'' remarks mean in my status file. They are only in the last portion of the file and are listed below. If they mean nothing, I will rest easy. But if not it means I need to fix something. Your thoughts would be appreciated. ---------------- udp 17 92 src=24.224.173.220 dst=24.222.0.75 sport=1027 dport=53 src=24.222.0.75

I forgot to add the last new feature to the previous announcement. Shorewall 2.2.2 is now available. http://shorewall.net/pub/shorewall/2.2/shorewall-2.2.2 ftp://shorewall.net/pub/shorewall/2.2/shorewall-2.2.2 Problems Corrected: 1. The SOURCE column in the /etc/shorewall/tcrules file now correctly allows IP ranges (assuming that your iptables and kernel support ranges). 2.

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

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

Beta 1 is now available. http://shorewall.net/pub/shorewall/Beta ftp://shorewall.net/pub/shorewall/Beta Contrary to my previous plan, Beta 1 uses the same file and directory names as the current Shorewall version so the Beta will not be able to co-exist with a Shorewall 1.4 installation. Before installing the Beta, please review the release notes carefully. Once you have installed the Beta,

Hi, Thanks for your reply . I am attaching the files needed by you herewith. The NAT device is called Pronto gateway which has two interfaces , namely eth0 and eth1. ''eth0'' has an ip address of 203.124.152.66 and eth1 has an ip address of 192.168.1.3 . All the client PCs are in 192.168.1.0 network [behind the NAT, the Pronto gateway] and use 192.168.1.3 as the default

As far as I can tell from <http://shorewall.net/errata.htm> the current shorewall bogons file is <http://shorewall.net/pub/shorewall/errata/2.0.8/bogons> which contains the line: 58.0.0.0/7 logdrop # Reserved This is incorrect. These two /8s were allocated to APNIC as of April 2004. See also <http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=nanog&m=108319003517919&w=2> and the main

Hi dovecot list, Static build of dovecot fails because src/lib/module-dir.c refers to MODULE_SUFFIX that is undefined when building statically. This least to the following build failure: module-dir.c: In function 'module_file_get_name': module-dir.c:624:20: error: 'MODULE_SUFFIX' undeclared (first use in this function) p = strstr(fname, MODULE_SUFFIX); ^