similar to: upgrade question

Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña has discovered an exploitable vulnerability in the way that Shorewall handles temporary files and directories. The vulnerability can allow a non-root user to cause arbitrary files on the system to be overwritten. LEAF Bering and Bering uClibc users are generally not at risk due to the fact that LEAF boxes do not typically allow logins by non-root users. For 2.0

I am getting the following message when Shorewall stops can anybody shed any light on this message and where I should be looking? Thanks root@bobshost:~# shorewall stop Loading /usr/share/shorewall/functions... Processing /etc/shorewall/params ... Processing /etc/shorewall/shorewall.conf... Loading Modules... Stopping Shorewall...Processing /etc/shorewall/stop ... IP Forwarding Enabled

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

Hi, I have a big "name problem" with my internal mail server (10.0.0.152). It is "seen" on the internet through DNAT (213.58.230.27). Also there is a MX record pointing to the machine. Everything works fine from the outside. However i can''t set the mail clients on the lan pointing to the mx record, because this one points to 213.58.230.27 and the firewall

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

Good day to all. I don''t like to Post unless I am really stuck. Guess what? Redhat with Shorewall. Been using this for years. I have a new client that we have setup with Redhat and Shorewall. The problem is that his outside address (ETH0 = NET) is dynamic (i.e. DHCP enabled). All the rules work fine when we use a STATIC address on Eth0, so we know the rules, filters, tos etc work fine

Hi all, I''m using Gentoo Linux Distribution and I''ve upgraded my firewall from Shorewall 1.4 to 2.0.4, however my LANs stop having internet access. I have a server with shorewall 2.0.4 installed and 3 interfaces. eth0 and eth1 are interfaces to a LAN and to my laptop and eth2 is the net interface. I have masq like: eth2 eth0 eth2 eth1

Hi all, I was trying to test ROUTE specific code with a multi-isp serviced box. There is a bug somewhere, but I''m not able to understand what the real problem is: when I issue a "shorewall show capabilities" I get: Loading /usr/share/shorewall/functions... Processing /etc/shorewall/params ... Processing /etc/shorewall/shorewall.conf... Loading Modules... Shorewall has

Hi folks, Has anyone tested the changes to multiple ISPs/load balancing or routestopped in 2.4.0-RC1 yet? We need to talk about what criteria we will use for determining whether 2.4.0 is ready for release. I''ve started configuring a firewall at work with the multiple ISPs support, but its kernel doesn''t have connection marking support, so it''s going to be a couple of

Hello! I am using shorewall shorewall-2.0.11-1 on fedora core2 (iptables-1.2.9-95.7). My box has 2 physical nic´s plus one virt. ipsec interface for a freeswan-vpn connection. A few days ago, portsentry spit out a lot of connections from windows clients (port 135, 445). Ooops. I review my shorewall settings but could not find a mistake. So I took a win-client and established a second

Hi, I have a working test install of Shorewall 2.0.7 on a 32 bit install of Gentoo, it''s working like a champ, so i am making an install on a nice new Opteron server, using 64bit Gentoo. I have run into a problem which going by your FAQ might be due to a missing module, but after a couple of hours of fiddling I''m stumpted - I can''t see any options in the 2.6.8 kernel

Hi everybody I have a Problem with Masquerading from my local net (loc) to my VPN (loc2). I can reach every Service from loc2 in loc, but I can''t get reach any service from loc in loc2. Has somebody an Idea where my mistake is ? Without shorewall, it was working. Thanks for helping Lars Technical Information : Shorewall 2.0.13 Suse 9.0 *177.177.77.X The first 3 Counts are changed

Hello all, I’m running Shorewall 2.2.1 on linux kernel 2.6.10 with iptables 1.2.11. I recently ran a nessus scan of my firewall from a machine outside of the firewall and the nessus report told me that there are some ports open that I did not specify to be open. The ports are 32772/udp, 123/udp, 111/tcp, 32772/udp, and 53/udp. Why are these ports open when I did NOT specify them to be open

I have an "old and decrepit" install of Shorewall, installed from a Debian package. I''m having a problem, so in order to get support, I''m working on upgrading to the most recent stable version. What I''d like to do, is to test the new version with my configuration files, without actually installing it -- just untarring it. Is this possible? How can I

I''m having a problem with the Shorewall firewall and CUPS printing interfering with each other. My Linux firewall machine is acting as both a CUPS server and client for all of my tests. Shorewall 2.0.13 CUPS 1.1.22-2 Linux kernel 2.6.9 CUPS was working fine to print to my Epson C84 (network connected via a Netgear PS101 print server using lpd://PS101.IP.address/raw ) until I

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 > >

Hello, My hoster updated its kernel packages... It contained some old problems that should have been fixed. My servers have now a wonderful 2.6.21.5 kernel + grsec running. Both are running Debian 4.0 (stable release). mx:/etc/shorewall# iptables --version iptables v1.3.6 mx:/etc/shorewall# uname -a Linux mx.network-hosting.com 2.6.21.5-grsec-xxxx-grs-ipv4-32 #1 SMP Fri Jul 27 17:18:23 CEST

Anyone else seeing this?? Thanks, -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

Hello, I have this problem: when my mail server on the DMZ starts a connection to the internet it''s ip (213.58.230.26) is "masqueraded" with the firewall ip (213.58.230.50). I wouldn''t mind but there is a one customer who rejects the connection because it makes reverse dns and finds no dns entry for the firewall ip. How can i correct this? Thanks, MSantos shorewall

I have problem getting answer on http request from all my local subnets but not from local subnet. Ping and requests on ports 21 22 23 25 110 works fine. I logged port 80 in rules files and I got accept entry same for local subnet and other subnets. Local subnet is 192.168.6 Dec 29 09:52:40 zinfsrv2 kernel: Shorewall:loc2fw:ACCEPT:IN=eth0 OUT= MAC=00:09:6b:07:ca:cc:00:10:b5:fa:bd:71:08:00