similar to: Log ?

Hi, I''m running shorewall-2.0.8-1mdk with iptables-1.2.9-7.1.101mdk on kernel-2.4.22-30mdk, Mandrake 10.1 (kernel-2.6.8.1.10mdk-1-1mdk is installed, but I haven''t rebooted yet). I get a significant number of newnotsyn packet denials from existing, valid connections. Most of these seem to be on port 80 and port 25, and directionality doesn''t seem to matter (I run

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 shorewall version 1.4.10g on Redhat 9 Local clients are on eth1 in subnet 192.168.3.0/24. eth0 is for the outside (over xdsl with includes a ppp0 interface). Nessus (nessusd) is installed *on the firewall* and managed trough nessus (the client or frontend) running on one of the internal machines. When I was running a scan against 194.152.181.36 I observed several entries like

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

Has anyone encountered a situation where packets dropped by the newnotsyn chain can result in sporadic browsing problems, slowness, and even timeouts? I noticed that of the 3300 hits for newnotsyn in our current log (6 hours worth), over 2700 of them were to/from our proxy servers. And browsing through them, most *appear* to be otherwise valid packets from remote web servers that would have

Hello, I''ve "emerged" Shorewall 2.0.7 onto my Gentoo pc. Going through the 2 interface quickstart guide I download the 2.0.1 interface sample and untar it. "tar -zxvf two-interfaces.tgz" Maybe a dumb question but I can''t find anything on Google or the Shorewall mail archives that say anything about this. So I''m assuming its me. :P But the

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

There has been a low continuing level of confusion over the terms "Source NAT" (SNAT) and "Static NAT". To avoid future confusion, all instances of "Static NAT" have been replaced with "One-to-one NAT" on the web site and in the CVS configuration files (Shorewall/ project). The documentation in 1.4.9 will also contain this change. -Tom -- Tom Eastep \

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 Guys, I need some help. I''ve been using shorewall for a while now and it''s been running beautifully, but I''m now experiencing some problems. It seems that connections are getting dropped much like the behavior described by the NEWNOTSYN=no option in the shorewall.conf file, but I have NEWNOTSYN=Yes in my file. The messages I see in my logs are things like:

Problems Corrected: 1) A problem seen on RH7.3 systems where Shorewall encountered start errors when started using the "service" mechanism has been worked around. 2) A problem introduced in earlier snapshots has been corrected. This problem caused incorrect netfilter rules to be created when the destination zone in a rule was qualified by an address in CIDR format.

I apologize for the first message. :) --------------------------------------- I have an FTP server running in the DMZ section of my home network. It uses port 23000 for connection and ports 19990 to 19994 for data transfer. I have setup the following rule for outside people to connect to it: DNAT net dmz:192.168.2.2 tcp 23000 I''m at work right now and I can''t use

I have allowed ALL of the local users to ping the internet but they currently get the following error and cannot access the internet ! I know it is something I have done wrong (I think it is a routing problem but just cannot find out what) The error is:- Reply from 212.219.13.74: destination host unreachable. My eth1 is 10.0.0.1 and the users can ping that OK My eth0 is 212.219.13.74 (connected

This is a bug-fix roll-up. Problems corrected since 1.4.6: 1) Corrected problem in 1.4.6 where the MANGLE_ENABLED variable was being tested before it was set. 2) Corrected handling of MAC addresses in the SOURCE column of the tcrules file. Previously, these addresses resulted in an invalid iptables command. 3) The "shorewall stop" command is now disabled when

I''m attempting to setup Squid as shown on: http://shorewall.sourceforge.net/Shorewall_Squid_Usage.html#DMZ The firewall is a Bering 1.0 firewall running Shorewall 1.3.11, Red Hat 7.2 on the server in the DMZ. I''m not seeing the requests come in to the server using tcpdump. The server is 192.168.2.1 connecting to eth2 on the firewall, the local traffic I''m trying to

What''s the difference between a newnotsyn DROP and a blacklist DROP? Also, there''s a web site (SRC=62.193.203.132) that has been trying to connect to port 25 for a couple of weeks now. Is there a way to get someone upstream to add a block to that site for a small fish like me?

Shorewall 1.4.9 is now available. http://shorewall.net/pub/shorewall/shorewall-1.4.9 ftp://shorewall.net/pub/shorewall/shorewall-1.4.9 Unless something urgent comes up, this will be the last release of Shorewall 1.x. Release notes are attached. -Tom -- Tom Eastep \ Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool Shoreline, \ http://shorewall.net Washington USA \

Hi, I have a install of shorewall I have 2 interfaces(I think) ppp0[connection device] and eth0 [LAN device], I want to allow all traffic from the the internet in or aleast port 80 and CVS and webmin and mail and everything normal to the main machine with shorewall on it. I changed to policy file but it just gave me errors as to double interfaces. I also what still to alow connection sharing

Hi, I am back into working on LLVM now and am having problems with Cygwin builds. Problems with both the 1.9 Release and the CVS on Cygwin... LLVM CVS Release build :- /usr/src/llvm/configure --prefix=/usr/llvm make tools-only ENABLE_OPTIMIZED=1 make[3]: Entering directory `/usr/src/lib/Bytecode/Writer' llvm[3]: Compiling SlotCalculator.cpp for Release build llvm[3]: Compiling

What shorewall rules would be required to allow the OSPF routing protocol to pass fw<->loc? Any suggestions would be appreciated. Ben