similar to: Allowing 4662 port

Hi! I don;t know what i am doing wrong because i have still Low ID on aMule. I have action.AllowaMule and accept tcp 4662:4771 and udp 4672. Thanks, Mitja

We''ve just upgraded to a new firewall machine, and a new version of Shorewall. We''re now on 2.04; previous version was 1.3.9b (!). So I''m pretty sure whatever problems we''re having are related to the big version jump. We''re using config files that exactly match our old (working) configuration (IOW, these are things which _were_ working on the old

Hello, I''m new in the list. I''ve installed Mandrake MNF and it works fine but I''ve a problem in sending emails. Small text mails can go out but bigger ones, with attachements, have problems. My network is formed by Windows workstations and only the firewall is a Linux box. The first simptom is the reaching of ISP''s server time out and then my mail client goes in

I know this is a FAQ and that it''s been discussed much before, I''m just looking for a few key things. I need to setup our gateway so that traffic FROM a range of IPs is sent out, masqueraded, via a new cable connection. I''m running 2.6.9. Am I going to require any of the CONNMARK patches or other patches from http://www.ssi.bg/~ja/#routes? I''m really not sure

Hi peploe, i am new in the list, i need know, how blocked the Amule/emule in shorewall? My dist. debian version: 3.2.6-shorewall -- .~. / v \ Seja Livre, use GNU/Linux! /( )\ ^^-^^ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005.

Hi All, i am trying to install Shorewall 2.0 on debian 3.0. But when i try apt-get i am getting older version i.e. 1.2. Can someone send me a pointer on how to install shorewall latest version on Debian 3.0 please. i searched google and on this site but could find any. i am not in this list, pl include me in ur replies. Appreciate ur help, -Balaji

Hello, My server is on Mandrake 10.1 off. eth0 is WAN with static IP connected 512 DSL eth1 is LAN. My default shorewall settings are : Source zone Destination zone Policy Syslog level Traffic limit loc net ACCEPT None None fw net ACCEPT None None net Any

Hi Tom,  I´m very glad using Shorewall I proud to say that use it in my whole network (215 Real IP´s over ProxyArp) I can filter everyone have mac-control of then etc etc. Well I´m like a child playing with it :) But now, have a question there is any way to filter or use an Anti-virus in this network ? To drop packets with virus ?? To scan HTTP request ?? Or maybe use Dansguardian ? Did you

I read LinuxFest NW 2005 Presentation pdf. On page 32, mentioned it required patches on kernel 2.6.x and netfilter and It only said that SuSE 9.2 and 9.3 had patches on it''s stock kernel. I''m using Redhat AS 4. Anybody knows does the stock kernel and netfilter had theses patches patched ? or How should I know the kernel and netfilter had these patches applied ? thanks!

Hi all Firewall is Linux SLES8 kernel 2.4.21-278-default with 2 interfaces, fixed IP addresses on LAN and Internet (INT, WAN), NAT from LAN to INT (Masquerading-SNAT). Shorewall is v2.2.2. I am trying to allow access from LAN to Internet for all workstations EXCEPT for some of them. Default policy is REJECT LAN to INT traffic, so rule created in /etc/shorewall/rules is: ACCEPT

Hello, I tried to find the answer to my problem already but it is a specialised one I think because nothing was found. I previously have a ISP who was very fast ("extreme speed" service from Cable Modem) but that blocked SMTP port and some other for poor non-commercial users... And it gives dynamic addresses so no DNS at home without tricks... So I went to another

Hi, I have met the problem: when I use the shaping discipline tc qdisc add dev ppp0 parent 1:2 tbf latency 50ms burst 1450 rate 50kbit one of my application (namely, "aMule") starts leaving sockets in "CLOSING" state. These sockets accumulate and do not disappear. Eventually I have so many of these dead sockets that the kernel warns "Out of socket memory" in

Hi all, I'm trying to use centos5 as desktop/development machine, but i having a lot of problems to compile Amule and d4X, tools that I use a lot. Somebody have some experience to do this work?? sombody have an .spec file?? thanks a lot ! JC J?nior Ps. yes I have all lib neccessari to build this tools.

Hi List, I read this list for nearly two years and learnt a lot, but now i have a very strange problem I can''t solve.. I have a firewall machine running Debian, which connects a small office to the internet via a DSL-line (with pppoe) and which is running Shorewall. It allows all outbound traffic and accepts pptp, openvpn and ssh-connections (on a non-standard port) from the internet.

Goodday, First my network layout: dsl router (10.0.0.99) | server (eth0 10.0.0.1, eth1 10.0.1.10) | 3 times windows machine (10.0.1.2, 10.0.1.3, 10.0.1.4) (all with proxy settings 10.0.1.10:8080) Now on the server is mandrake 10 installed with shorewall as firewall. And a apache webserver (and no ftp server). When i turned internet sharing on it started squid which added a line in the

how to block edonkey traffic with shorewall ? Thanks

Hello guys: I recently installed FC 5 linux and installed R from source. It installed fine, but there was an oddity that I want to report. Although I used ./configure --prefix=/usr/local/R-2.3.0 make it did not seem to recognize the prefix and went ahead and installed it in the source directory -- I usually ``tar xzf'' it to my home directory and run the installation scripts from there

Hi, I need to block eMule program. How can I make it ? Best Regards, Anderson.

Hi, I have a CentOS 5.2 desktop with the RPMForge repo enabled. I just ran 'yum update', and there seems to be some trouble with the wxGTK apps. A simple 'yum update' gives this error message: --8<-------------------------------------------------------------------- --> Finished Dependency Resolution Error: Missing Dependency: libwx_gtk2u_adv-2.6.so.0 is needed by package

I have an old Pentium 233 MHz with 256 MB RAM that has Debian and wine20041019 installed. As this machine runs "not so fast" I'm not sure if I should upgrade to 0.9. If one of you could tell me that 0.9 runs a little bit faster than 20041019 this would ease my decision. ;-) Markus Winhard