similar to: After upgrade people can no longer connect

Hello, I believe there may be a bug in shorewall version 2.0.8. I''ve been using shorewall for years without problems (last installed version was 1.4.6b-1). I''ve posted previously with the subject line "After upgrade people can no longer connect" dated on Sunday, September 19, 2004 which contains all the information for the upgrade. Today I uninstalled shorewall

Hi there, Let me just start by saying that I am a bit of a Linux newbie, but that Shorewall seems an excellant product. The issue I''m reporting wont stop me from using it, it still does 99% of what I need. Anyway, I have a resonably simple two interface system. My server (HatMannz, P3-900MHz with a RAID-1 array of 80GB IDE drives running Red Hat 9.0) connects to a cable modem via eth1

Hola and thanks for any help in advance I installed mandrake 9 a few days ago and wanted to set up some additional rules to shorewall, bu i failed :) What i want to do is basicly route any incomming udp and tcp packets on port 4665 to a workstation behind the router. router with mandrake 9, eth0 (192.168.0.1) internal net, eth1(10.0.0.0) connected to dsl modem and gets a dynamic ip

We switched over from a bordermanager firewall to a shorewall firewall. Some stuff is not working now. I realized that I had not created the route for the network that is not working however once I created it, it still didn''t work. Most of our network is fine however some pieces are not working. [Net] - [Shorewall] - [LAN] - [Cisco] - [Clients and servers not working] The firewall

Hello all, Yesterday I noticed that my system was "leaking" traffic towards the 10/8 network, I have shorewall installed on multiple machines ranging from single interface devices to ones with 10+ interfaces. I tested all the boxes and they are showing the same behavior. All systems are CentOS 3.4, 2.4.21-27.0.2.ELsmp. Shorewall version: 2.2.1 For the host mentioned is a single

Hello, I cannot establish Xserver connection via wireless subnet, while telnet is working fine. There was a similar problem before in Shorewall over IPSEC that Tom had fixed. Also, ping is working, but traceroute is not. Finally, PuTTY gets a connectivity error after couple minutes of inactivity over wireless when connected to the firewall/gateway. Wireless is configured per instructions in

Hello, I''m trying to configure my desktop as a bluetooth network access point for my ipaq (as explained in http://www.stolk.org/debian/bluetooth.html). I''m running shorewall version 2.2.1 on debian testing with a local network via eth0 and internet access via eth1. I''ve created a bridge br0 for eth0 and bnep0 and activated bridging in shorewall. dhcpd is listening

Hi, I''m having problems with new Shorewall installation on Fedora Core 3 (had same problem with Core 2 and upgrade did not help even iptables was upgraded from 1.2.9 to 1.2.11). I''ve followed two nic example, but starting Shorewall drops all connections and don''t permit any outgoing requests, even with "all allowed" policy. Policy file is below. Current setup

Shorewall 4.5.1.1 I have 5 interfaces on a centos box, the first two are internal on two different subnets, the next two are two different ISP''s and the last one is a private network for testing and administration. The second internal subnet (eth1) is rejecting all the arp requests to it and I get the following in the log files ever second or two - May 16 05:28:54 services kernel:

Hi! I have reprise try to resolve this problem, suspended from 17 dec 2005 I have try to apply the suggest of Jerry (see above). The problem still exist. See attach shorewall config, dump and tcpdump when I check to exit whit SSH from firewall... In the masq file is reported the last my attempt in order to resolve my problem, however I have test also the example reported in MultiISP.html, but

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

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

I''m very new to shorewall. My setup is IP Gateway (CentOS 4 + Shorewall) with 3 NIC cards. Shorewall works great on the firewall machine. Bind also works (local net machines get IPs fine). Under firestarter, all works great. With shorewall, the loc machines can not route past the firewall. They can connect to the firewall, but not past it. Exactly what information should I post to get

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The original post was over 300,000kb so I didn''t spam the list with it -TE. | | | Thank you for your quick and helpful response. | | I didn''t understand that the virtual interface eth0:1 doesn''t count as a separate instance from eth0. | I am sorry to ask for further assistance and would appreciate any help. The error

I have a setup with two Internet providers. One circuit (net0 == eth1) is used primarily for employees and tunnels to other sites. The other (net1 == eth2) is for the production machines that customers access. Everythung works in teh sense that packets get to where they are sent (mostly) but I recently I had a sniffer on the system and noticed a problem I cannot solve. traffic coming in

Hello I have DSL 2000 (2048 kbit/s download and 256 kbit/s upload) I have ping to fast sites very high: 64 bytes from w2.rc.vip.scd.yahoo.com (66.94.234.13): icmp_seq=3 ttl=50 time=2185 ms 64 bytes from w2.rc.vip.scd.yahoo.com (66.94.234.13): icmp_seq=4 ttl=50 time=1983 ms 64 bytes from w2.rc.vip.scd.yahoo.com (66.94.234.13): icmp_seq=5 ttl=50 time=1826 ms and I know why. I have 2 interfaces:

Hi, this is propably bridge related and not really a xen problem, but it might help someone: Some of our domUs are not able to arp. Arp -n show (incomplete), and doing a tcpdump shows, that on the dom0''s eth0 the arp request goes out, the response comes in, but on the vifX.0 interface the arp response is gone. dom0# tcpdump -ni eth0 arp who-has 10.32.2.51 tell 10.32.7.70 arp reply

This is my system info: Debian Release: 10.5 APT prefers stable-updates APT policy: (500, 'stable-updates'), (500, 'stable') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Kernel: Linux 5.4.60-1-pve (SMP w/16 CPU cores) Kernel taint flags: TAINT_PROPRIETARY_MODULE, TAINT_OOT_MODULE Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE=en_US:en (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh

Hi folks, I read quite some posts about "Destination host unreachable" problems before, but none could help me to solve my issue. So here we go: This is what I am using: SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop 10 SP1 - Current with all updates Network configuration of my dom0: foobar:~ # ip a 1: lo: <LOOPBACK,UP> mtu 16436 qdisc noqueue link/loopback 00:00:00:00:00:00 brd

Hi I have recently reconfigured my system to a Bridge based architecture on the basis that I have an ADSL Modem/Router with a Public address on the Wan side and a Private address on the Lan side. I am running a Debian based system kernel 2.6.7 and the Bridging software is installed and working correctly, including startup etc. The problem that I have is in "shorewall start" The