similar to: shorewall friendly way of limiting ssh brute force attacks?

fail2ban might be good for this. On 04/05/2011 01:00 PM, asterisk-users-request at lists.digium.com wrote: > > Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 08:44:41 -0700 (PDT) > From: Steve Edwards<asterisk.org at sedwards.com> > Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] Iptables configuration to handle brute > force registrations? > > On Tue, 5 Apr 2011, Gilles wrote: > >> I'm no expert

I added these rules to IPTABLES to slow brute force attacks. iptables -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 22 -s my_subnet/24 -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 22 -m state --state NEW -m recent --set --name SSH iptables -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 22 -m state --state NEW -m recent --update --seconds 60 --hitcount 5 --rttl --name SSH -j DROP I would like log entries when connections are dropped to see

Hello I am looking for a way to have snort to dynamically update my shorewall config. I have seen software out there but I would like to see if anyone had tried this first. Aslo I would like to know if there is a way clear the Netfilter tables when I do a shorewall restart. The reason being is that when I make a change to my firewall setting I want all connections to have to re-establish

I ask because I only receive attacks when I activate icecast. I can not do anything at the application level ?. i used ubuntu server 16.04. thanks. 2018-06-05 14:52 GMT-05:00 Alejandro Flores <alex at mordormx.net>: > I think you should contact to your connectivity provider, hopefully they > can provide you the Anti DDOS protection. > > > On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 2:16 PM,

Hello, all. I read this document about iptables recent module. http://blog.andrew.net.au/2005/02/16#ipt_recent_and_ssh_attacks and I would like to filter the excessive spam mail sending ip address by iptables recent module. and some questions. iptables -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 25 -m state --state NEW -m recent --set --name SPAM iptables -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 25 -m state --state NEW -m

Hi, I''ve attached a patch which fixes a logging problem with log_rule_limit in custom actions. E.g. this action: ,----[ Whitelist ] | if [ -n "$LEVEL" ]; then | run_iptables -N ${CHAIN}Add | log_rule_limit $LEVEL ${CHAIN}Add WhitelistAdd DROP "$LOG_LIMIT" $TAG | run_iptables -A ${CHAIN}Add -j DROP | run_iptables -N ${CHAIN}Del | log_rule_limit

Hello All, I had problems with the security server, the server is frequently attacked using bruteforce attacks. Is there an application that can perform automatic blocking when there are failed login to the ports smtp, pop3 port, and others? I am currently using CentOS 5.5 in some servers Thanks in advanced....... -- -- Best regards, David http://blog.pnyet.web.id -------------- next part

Hi, I am confused about the tcrules syntax. When I try to shape a web server running on fw with this line: 4 fw 0.0.0.0/0 tcp - 80 it works but the "80" must be in CLIENT PORT, my logic says it should be in the "PORT" column (doesn''t work there) am I missing something or are the columns labeled wrong? thx Jan

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

just wanted to get some feedback from the community. Over the last few days I have noticed my web server and email box have attempted to ssh'd to using weird names like admin,appuser,nobody,etc.... None of these are valid users. I know that I can block sshd all together with iptables but that will not work for us. I did a little research on google and found programs like sshguard and

hello , i''m currently trying to set-up Traffic Shapping with Shorewall and I have strong feelings that I found a bug. I may be mistaken, but I tried everything and can''t get it to work. I''ve turned ON TC_ENABLED=Yes and CLEAR_TC=Yes when i start shorewall ( shorewall start ), i get this message : Setting up Traffic Control Rules... TC Rule "2 eth1 0.0.0.0/0 tcp

[This email is either empty or too large to be displayed at this time]

Hello, I wonder if someone could use the TPROXY with Shorewall and transparent Squid  with using the routing rules on shorewall (tcrules) for hosts / networks (LAN) with multiples providers (WANs) directly from the internal network on port 80 (with TPROXY transparent squid or REDIRECT). On this issue, the routing rules is not work propertly because the source is the

Hi, I tried shorewall 2.2.0-rc4 and 2.2.0-rc5 on 3 different machines (just to be sure it''s not pebkac). The IPP2P support is broken, line like: DROP loc net ipp2p generates: iptables -A loc2net -j DROP that''s _wrong_ :) i have tried playing with debug to no avail, and I''m not that good at bashing... just to be complete, the suggested status.txt from one of the

Hello, First , thanks to Tom for it''s great job ! Netfilter is really easy and powerfull with shorewall. So, I have configured two firewalls whith shorewall using keepalived for the redundant VRRP stuff. FW-a is MASTER and FW-b is BACKUP. Everything works correctly and FW-b upgrade to MASTER when FW-a is down or disconnected. FW-b downgrade to BACKUP when FW-a comes back. But when I

Dear CentOS Community Is totally clear there's no support sendmail platform today, but I need to stop SMTP brute-force attack on sendmail. My server is attacked today, my maillog look like : 4624 at myserver.com>, proto=ESMTP, daemon=MTA, relay=myserver.com [127.0.0.1] Jun 14 19:07:01 at6412 sendmail[24627]: q5EN71jC024627: from=<>, size=3958, class=0, nrcpts=1,

I made the following adjustments to /etc/shorewall/common.def (1.3.13 with all relevant patches). ############################################################################ # Shorewall 1.3 -- /etc/shorewall/common.def # # This file defines the rules that are applied before a policy of # DROP or REJECT is applied. In addition to the rules defined in this file, # the firewall will also define a

Hi! how can I mark ack packets with shorewall 2.x? (In 1.x I have done it with own rule in common file) TiA CU

It seems to me that ipsecnat tunnel type is not complete. Latest drafts of ipsec nat-traversal use udp port 4500 for nat-traversal communications. (It''s called port floating). That is needed to get rid of ugly ipsec passthru devices. Now ipsecnat opens port udp/500 from any source port. And I think ipsecnat won''t work at all with gw zone defined? I''m not sure about

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