similar to: SMB Problem

I''ve just discovered that I do not have access to the remote gateways for a set of IPsec tunnels to remote networks. This prevents me from changing the routing table on those gateways. I need "roadwarrior" systems connecting to me local network using OpenVPN (tun) to be able to access those systems. Since the remote gateways don''t know about 10.100.1.0/24, where my

I have a zone "rw" defined as tun0 in interfaces. From that zone, pings to zone "loc" succeed but pings to remote networks (On IPsec VPNs) are rejected in the all2all chain. From my point of view, these pings should be in the rw2cctc chain. (rw to cctc is ACCEPTed in policy.) I must have a hole in my config, where would it be? Thanks, A.

I have had to replace an existing setup which has a bunch of IPs Proxy-NAT''ed onto the loc segment. While I do eventually want to move them to their own segment, I have to deal with this for the next few weeks. My problem is that from a loc system I can ping the public IP of a system being proxy-ARP''d but I can''t hit it via HTTP. Nothing is being blocked according

I see support in shorewall for the KAME-tools, how about strongswan ? I have setup shorewall 3.4.4 and strongswan 4.1.3, making this my vpn-gateway for the subnet behind it. # Shorewall version 3.4 - Zones File #ZONE TYPE OPTIONS IN OUT # OPTIONS OPTIONS fw firewall fil ipsec mode=tunnel mss=1400 net ipv4

While I have concentrated on support for 2.6 native IPSEC in release 2.2.0, I am still of the opinion that unless you absolutely need IPSEC compatibility that OpenVPN is a much easier (and in the case of roadwarriors, a much better) solution. Having already generated all of the required X.509 certificates, it took me less than 1/2 hr to replace my IPSEC testbed with an OpenVPN one using the new

This release back-ports the DROPINVALID shorewall.conf option from 2.2.0. 1) Recent 2.6 kernels include code that evaluates TCP packets based on TCP Window analysis. This can cause packets that were previously classified as NEW or ESTABLISHED to be classified as INVALID. The new kernel code can be disabled by including this command in your /etc/shorewall/init file: echo 1

All, With the dual-ISP support in the latest versions of Shorewall, is it also possible to setup dual-VPN with something like OpenVPN? If so, what are the high levels steps that would need to be completed? Aaron

As suggested here: http://lists.shorewall.net/pipermail/shorewall-users/2004-October/015097.html I''ve run: adam@shrike:~$ /sbin/iptables -m policy --help iptables v1.2.11 Usage: iptables -[AD] chain rule-specification [options] iptables -[RI] chain rulenum rule-specification [options] iptables -D chain rulenum [options] --snip-- And: adam@shrike:~$ sudo

I have been working really hard configuring and researching very extensively, trying to figure why we are getting "Shorewall:FORWARD:DROP" packets. IPSEC works just fine without the iptable rules created by our shorewall configs but when starting shorewall and creating the iptables I noticed the packets are dropped. I know it is a config situation but I am totally racking my brain as

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

Hello, I''m stuck IPSECing my wireless network at home and would appreciate any comments. I appologize in advance if I''m wasting your time with trivia - I''m not a professional and staring at the problem for days from various angles hasn''t done me any good ... My home server/firewall (morannon) is hooked up through an USB to ethernet adapter (eth1) to my DSL

Hi, I''m asking my question here, because I could not find any answer to my problem, but I''m affraid shorewall is not the one to blame. First of all I''m using shorewall version 2.0.15 on two linux box. I set up an ipsec tunnel beetween those 2 boxes to be ables to connect 2 not routable subnetworks. Here is my network topology: 10.66.17.0/24 - 10.66.17.1 = eth0

Hi, I have a very simple server setup, using shorewall as my firewall. I have a line like this at the top of my rules file to allow ssh connections, but limited to 3 connection per minute with a burst rate of 3: SSH/ACCEPT net $FW - - - - 3/min:3 - Now when I have that in place, and from a remote machine run scp server:/some/file ., I find

I have problems connecting IPSEC VPN clients on the masqueraded network to outside VPN servers. It looks like this: ipsec-user | 192.168.1.10 (DHCP assigned) | | 192.168.1.1 fw-1 (shorewall, Linux 2.6) | 20.20.20.20 (internet) | 30.30.30.30 fw-2 (IPSEC VPN endpoint) | 192.168.100.1 | | 192.168.100.2 server ipsec-user (a road warrior) is supposed to create an IPSEC tunnel to his home

I set up an ipsec/racoon vpn tunnel test environment. The gateway machines are 192.168.0.30 and 192.168.0.31 on the external adaptor and 10.0.1.1 and 10.0.2.1 internally. The test workstations are 10.0.1.10 and 10.0.2.10. The tunnel seems to be working as in 10.0.1.10 can talk to 10.0.2.10 an vice versa and they can both use the net via NAT, however 192.168.0.30 and 192.168.0.31 cannot directly

Shorewall 3.4.6 running on SuSE Linux 10.2 Compiling Rule Activation... Shorewall configuration compiled to /var/lib/shorewall/.restart Processing /etc/shorewall/params ... Restarting Shorewall.... /sbin/shorewall: line 665: 6782 Segmentation fault $SHOREWALL_SHELL ${VARDIR}/.restart $debugging restart got this with V3.4.4, updated to 3.4.6 this morning, but that didn''t help.

Hey guys I''ve been beating my head on this for a few hours. Maybe it is just a stupid configuration error you can point me at. First here is a small diagram of what I am trying to configure: http://6bit.com/img/netdiag.png Currently I only have Shorewall running on the host on the right of the diagram until I can get this working then I''ll add it to the other host as well.

I have been using shorewall and freeswan successfully for 3 or more years now. But they have all been using the Linux 2.4 kernel. My current configuration is (as the title suggests) using SuSE 9.1 which has a 2.6.5 kernel and freeswan 2.0.4 built-in. After much reading and a lot of trial and error, I did get this combination to work with Shorewall 2.0.9. It is happily talking to an older Mandrake

Hi all, I finally got my IPSec tunnel from my Fedora firewall system (running Shorewall 4.0.6) to a remote Draytek Router up-and-running, but I''m having difficulties directing traffic through the tunnel. From the output of "racoon -F -f racoon.conf" and the connection status page of the Draytek I can tell the tunnel is UP, but ping and traceroute requests to several hosts

class wrote on 06/10/2004 11:18:48: > Hello, I have the following situation: > > 192.168.176.0/24 ------ A ========== B ------ 192.168.177.0/24 > 192.168.176.2 pop3 ipsec > racoon > > > policy: (Machine A and B) > ------- > loc vpn ACCEPT > vpn loc ACCEPT > all