similar to: Fail2Ban

Hello CentOS, I'm curious... there seems to be a couple of default firewall rules that I'm not familiar with in the CentOS 4.0 # Firewall configuration written by system-config-securitylevel # Manual customization of this file is not recommended. *filter :INPUT ACCEPT [0:0] :FORWARD ACCEPT [0:0] :OUTPUT ACCEPT [0:0] :RH-Firewall-1-INPUT - [0:0] -A INPUT -j RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -A FORWARD

Greetings: i have a pretty stock CentOS 5 machine with ports 80 and 22 exposed, so my /etc/sysconfig/iptables file is pretty standard/straightforward. my question is: how is this config file initially generated? i'd like to re-create it, and add a couple of rules .... so i don't want to lose what's in there already. i see that my /etc/sysconfig/system-config-securitylevel has

Dear CentOS community, I have install centos via CD, DVD and Directly off the net via http and FTP. Now I want to do a NFS install from a local server and a client. Both, client and server are in the same vlan 10.14.10.0/255.255.255.0. The server has a static 10.14.10.15 address and the client gets its own address via DHCP. I download the DVD image from one of the mirrors and placed it under

My firewall config is below... I am trying to figure out why another machine has access to port 5038 on my machine based on these firewall rules. I thought the reject at the bottom would take care of all other ports? It does not. I have restarted with "server iptables restart" and same thing. I can connect from another machine to my machine on port 5038. How do I prevent this?

Below is my firewall rules for iptables. everything is working fine except for NFS I cannot mount my drive. If I turn off iptables I can mount. Looking at this : http://www.centos.org/docs/5/html/Deployment_Guide-en-US/ch-nfs.html Important In order for NFS to work with a default installation of Red Hat Enterprise Linux with a firewall enabled, IPTables with the default TCP port 2049

On a CentOS 6.7 system that's been running fail2ban for a long time, we recently started seeing this: ct 28 19:00:59 <servername> fail2ban.action[17561]: ERROR iptables -w -D INPUT -p tcp --dport ssh -j f2b-SSH#012iptables -w -F f2b-SSH#012iptables -w -X f2b-SSH -- stderr: "iptables v1.4.7: option `-w' requires an argument\nTry `iptables -h' or 'iptables --help' for

Hello, I'm using fail2ban to block bots in conjunction with existing iptables rules. Here's a few rules from my iptables configuration: # # Set up a temporary pass rule so we don't lock ourselves out when #doing remote ssh iptables -P INPUT ACCEPT # # flush the current rules iptables -F # # Allow SSH connections on tcp port 22 iptables -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 22 -j ACCEPT # # Set

Hi all, First of all I am posting this on two lists for a reason, because the issue being reported by me could be because of a change delivered by a Kernel update or due to Xen. I have recently managed to update all Xen Guest domains running CentOS 5.3 to the latest bunch of updates + Kernel. My Xen host also runs the same CentOS 5.3 updated to all recent packages. The Guest images in concern

Hi all, First of all I am posting this on two lists for a reason, because the issue being reported by me could be because of a change delivered by a Kernel update or due to Xen. I have recently managed to update all Xen Guest domains running CentOS 5.3 to the latest bunch of updates + Kernel. My Xen host also runs the same CentOS 5.3 updated to all recent packages. The Guest images in concern

P? Tue, 31 Dec 2019 18:53:38 +0000 John H Nyhuis <jnyhuis at uw.edu> skrev: > Just a random stab in the dark, but CEntOS6 was iptables, and CentOS7 > is firewalld. They take different fail2ban packages. > > CentOS6 = fail2ban > CentOS7 = fail2ban-firewalld > > Are you sure you are running the correct fail2ban package for your > firewall? (I screwed this up myself

Hi, Is there any way to disable the "dovecot: " at the beginning of each line of the log? Fail2Ban responds poorly to it. I know there are a number of sites with "failregex" strings for Fail2Ban and Dovecot, but I've tried them all, and they don't work, at least with the latest Fail2ban and the latest Dovecot. The Fail2Ban wiki is pretty clear about why there

Hi, I realise that one can simply start fail2ban and then it will insert its own ruleset before shorewall''s ruleset. Are there subscribers to this list having alternative (and probably better) ways to use both fail2ban and shorewall? Thanks, Mark ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF email is sponsosred by: Try Windows Azure free for 90

I got the fail2ban from epel. There were a number of issues relating to using a log file... logwatch was looking for both fail2ban and fail2ban.log logrotate file fail2ban added looked for fail2ban.log and then reset itself to syslog fail2ban itself went to syslog, over riding its fail2ban.log. took a while, but I use /var/log/fail2ban now, that finally worked through logrotates and logwatch.

Hello, I have a big problem with fail2ban and firewalld on my new system. I have a server running (CentOS 7.1) and run a Update to 7.2 on this system all is working ? BUT I install a new system with CentOS 7 1511 on this systems fail2ban don't work anymore. I have this error or more, in the firewalld 2015-12-19 08:39:55 ERROR: COMMAND_FAILED: '/sbin/iptables -w2 -t filter -I

Hi, To begin I'm sorry for my poor English level, that's not my first language. On CentOS 6 I've installed fail2ban 0.8.4 from EPEL repository. I've configured it with this page : http://centoshelp.org/security/fail2ban/ Then I've tried this command : chkconfig --level 23 fail2ban on && service fail2ban start but the output says it fallen, nothing more. The status

I recall others on this list are using fail2ban to block brute force login attempts. Packages are from the EPEL repo, so I'm just sharing some knowledge here. For about two months now I've had a CentOS 6.3 box (web host) in production that occasionally is ftp brute forced. Oddly enough fail2ban wasn't nabbing the perpetrators. I found that the iptables chain for VSFTP isn't

In article <1446132814771.22431 at slac.stanford.edu>, Eriksson, Thomas <thomas.eriksson at slac.stanford.edu> wrote: > This should probably be a bug report for the fail2ban EPEL maintainer, the problem was introduced in version 0.9.3 > > >From the file /etc/fail2ban/action.d/iptables-common.conf > ... > # Option: lockingopt > # Notes.: Option was introduced to

Been working on fail2ban, and trying to make it work with plain Jane install of Centos 7 Machine is a HP running 2 Quad core Xeons, 16 gig or ram and 1 plus TB of disk space. Very generic and vanilla. Current available epel repo version is fail2ban-0.9.1 Looking at the log file, fail2ban starts and stops fine, there isn't output though showing any login attempts being restricted.

I have fail2ban on my mail server monitoring Dovecot and Exim. I have noticed that it has stopped banning IP's. I have seen in /var/log/fail2ban.log: 2020-04-07 09:42:05,875 fail2ban.filter [16138]: INFO [dovecot] Found 77.40.61.224 - 2020-04-07 09:42:05 2020-04-07 09:42:06,408 fail2ban.actions [16138]: NOTICE [dovecot] Ban 77.40.61.224 2020-04-07 09:42:06,981

On 13/04/20 1:30 pm, Orion Poplawski wrote: > On 4/9/20 6:31 AM, Andreas Haumer wrote: > ... >> I'm neither a fail2ban nor a SELinux expert, but it seems the >> standard fail2ban SELinux policy as provided by CentOS 7 is not >> sufficient anymore and the recent updates did not correctly >> update the required SELinux policies. >> >> I could report this