similar to: problem with high ports?

I''m beginning to think again about what will be different in 2.0. Here are some thoughts. a) User-defined actions will be emphasized. - A library of actions will be available with names such as: AcceptSSH AcceptDNS DropWindows (drops all SMB noise) DropBroadcasts (Silently drop all Broadcast traffic) ... The possibilities are nearly endless but should

Is there a way to mix static NAT and port forwarding or is it only possible to use a rule to port forward other IPs? In my tests using ACCEPT net loc:192.168.134.1:80 tcp http - all This worked if (from outside) I connected to the IP address of the external interface but failed (package went throught to Static NATed machine) for those IPs that used Static NAT. I have searched the

I am using shorewall 1.4.6a on redhat 9 Two interface. Using NAT 10.10.1.7 213.94.193.94 ---------------------------------------------------- Firewall gateway eth0: 213.94.193.89 eth1: 10.10.1.3 ---------------------------------------------------------- www server internal IP: 10.10.1.7 External IP: 213.94.193.94

Shorewall 2.0.0 is now in Beta so this is a good time to begin thinking about preparing to migrate to the 2.0 Shorewall series. Shorewall 2.0 makes a number of incompatible changes in the configuration files. Luckily, you will be able to make changes ahead of time to your 1.4 configuration that will ease the migration when the time comes. a) Shorewall 2.0 doesn''t allow you to specify

Shorewall 2.2.0 is expected to be released in the February/March timeframe so it is now time to begin thinking about preparing to upgrade. This is particularly important for those of you still running Shorewall 1.4 since support for that version will end with the release of 2.2. For those of you still running Shorewall 1.4, here are some things that you can do ahead of time to ease the upgrade to

Shorewall 2.2.0 is expected to be released in the February/March timeframe so it is now time to begin thinking about preparing to upgrade. This is particularly important for those of you still running Shorewall 1.4 since support for that version will end with the release of 2.2. For those of you still running Shorewall 1.4, here are some things that you can do ahead of time to ease the upgrade to

This is a minor release of Shorewall. WARNING: This release introduces incompatibilities with prior releases. See http://www.shorewall.net/upgrade_issues.htm. Changes are: a) There is now a new NONE policy specifiable in /etc/shorewall/policy. This policy will cause Shorewall to assume that there will never be any traffic between the source and destination zones. b) Shorewall no longer

Dear All, After installing Shorewall, on a router with 4 NIC, seems running ok. Next day, when connecting from clients, (MS) we keep getting ip conflict for non-conflicting ip addresses. Any help is appreciated. Detals of Startup: + shift + nolock= + ''['' 1 -gt 1 '']'' + trap ''my_mutex_off; exit 2'' 1 2 3 4 5 6 9 + command=start +

Beta code is available at: ftp://ftp.shorewall.net/pub/shorewall/Beta http://www.shorewall.net/pub/shorewall/Beta In this release: 1. Entries in /etc/shorewall/interface that use the wildcard character ("+") now have the "multi" option assumed. 2. The ''rfc1918'' chain in the mangle table has been renamed ''man1918'' to make log

Shorewall 1.3.3 is now available for download. In this release: 1. Entries in /etc/shorewall/interface that use the wildcard character ("+") now have the "multi" option assumed. 2. The ''rfc1918'' chain in the mangle table has been renamed ''man1918'' to make log messages generated from that chain distinguishable from those generated

The rule: ACCEPT loc $FW::3128 tcp www doesn''t work propertly, the http access does not redirect to squid but directly exit. what''s wrong? Thanks ------- Dario Lesca (d.lesca@ivrea.osra.it) -------------------------------------- @@@@@@@ this is my shorewall-1.2.13 config: #[/etc/shorewall/common.def]-----------------------------------------------

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

I''m beginning to believe that the use of the last column in the rules file to designate redirection/forwarding is too subtle for many users. For 1.3, I think I''ll do something like the following: Current rule: ACCEPT net loc:192.168.1.3 tcp 80 - all New rule: FORWARD net loc:192.168.1.3 tcp 80 Current rule: ACCEPT net fw::3128 tcp 80 - all New rule: REDIRECT net