The discussion about these firewall rules on port forwarding made it
clear that you have to put the IP-address of destination as it is
mentioned in the IP-header of the incoming IP-packet.
However, what with incoming routed traffic ???
There you indicate the source, being the IP-address of the pu
Hello everybody,
I would just like to let everybody know that we know about this issue
and we are currently working on a re-design of the Destination NAT GUI.
There will be a simple and an advanced mode. Simple mode will be enough
for normal port forwarding rules whereas advanced mode will be a
re
0
> From: domin...@slackadelic.com
> To: efw-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: Re: [Efw-user] firewall rules are hard to use
>
> On 1/4/2010 3:33 PM, oneforall immortal wrote:
> > well I'll have to go back to 2.2 I guess , I was going to paste my
> > domainanmme/b
efw-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: Re: [Efw-user] firewall rules are hard to use
>
> On 1/4/2010 3:33 PM, oneforall immortal wrote:
> > well I'll have to go back to 2.2 I guess , I was going to paste my
> > domainanmme/blah/snapshot.jpg to some one and I could even chec
good.
> Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 15:38:47 -0500
> From: domin...@slackadelic.com
> To: efw-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: Re: [Efw-user] firewall rules are hard to use
>
> On 1/4/2010 3:33 PM, oneforall immortal wrote:
> > well I'll have to go back to 2.2
On 1/4/2010 3:33 PM, oneforall immortal wrote:
> well I'll have to go back to 2.2 I guess , I was going to paste my
> domainanmme/blah/snapshot.jpg to some one and I could even check if it
> works first .
> all I want is it to work locally also (using the www.mydomain.com) but
> it refuses times ou
well I'll have to go back to 2.2 I guess , I was going to paste my
domainanmme/blah/snapshot.jpg to some one and I could even check if it works
first .
all I want is it to work locally also (using the www.mydomain.com) but it
refuses times out etc all because the simple way has become so darn c
Thanks for the help but can we keep it simple and less rech.
> From: pmsolive...@gmail.com
> To: efw-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 15:04:45 +
> Subject: Re: [Efw-user] firewall rules are hard to use
>
> Hi,
> Imagine the following network schema
dress that can scipt (bypass) the
proxy either by the looks of it .
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 13:25:08 +0100
From: i...@sitco.at
To: efw-user@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Efw-user] firewall rules are hard to use
Hi
"oneforall"
I do not
understand your problem
nd make no sence to me now.
>
>
>
>
> From: jonas.kell...@telenet.be
> To: efw-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 21:32:45 +0100
> Subject: Re: [Efw-user] firewall rules are hard to use
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
&
n: oneforall immortal [mailto:oneforal...@hotmail.com]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 31. Dezember 2009 12:28
An: efw-user@lists.sourceforge.net
Betreff: Re: [Efw-user] firewall rules are hard to use
the target should be where the router box is going to send it
too. Thats always been the way I tho
ed, 30 Dec 2009 19:25:28 +0000
> Subject: Re: [Efw-user] firewall rules are hard to use
>
> Hi Jonas,
> When you specify target green or 192.168.1.25 this means that the packet
> arriving on the uplink should have a destination ip of the green network or
> 192.168.1.25 and usu
Destination NAT, Source NAT, Incoming routed traffic
these to are split up and make no sence to me now.
From: jonas.kell...@telenet.be
To: efw-user@lists.sourceforge.net
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 21:32:45 +0100
Subject: Re: [Efw-user] firewall rules are hard to use
Thank you
ven the answers I see know
just talk in riddles so to speak. It become overly complex and that gets to be
like BS in most cases .
> From: i...@sitco.at
> To: efw-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 22:05:03 +0100
> Subject: Re: [Efw-user] firewall rules are h
omain name . It only wants to work if I use localhost:81 . I can't
use it any longer like this .
> From: i...@sitco.at
> To: efw-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 22:05:03 +0100
> Subject: Re: [Efw-user] firewall rules are hard to use
>
> Onother try:
&g
Hope that helps =)
Jo
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Pedro M. S. Oliveira [mailto:pmsolive...@gmail.com]
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 30. Dezember 2009 20:25
An: efw-user@lists.sourceforge.net
Betreff: Re: [Efw-user] firewall rules are hard to use
Hi Jonas,
When you specify target green or 192.168.1.25 t
Thank you Pedro for your explanation. I much appreciate it !!
Things become clearer...
On Wed, 2009-12-30 at 19:25 +, Pedro M. S. Oliveira wrote:
> Hi Jonas,
> When you specify target green or 192.168.1.25 this means that the packet
> arriving on the uplink should have a destination ip o
Hi Jonas,
When you specify target green or 192.168.1.25 this means that the packet
arriving on the uplink should have a destination ip of the green network or
192.168.1.25 and usuually that doesn't happen because they are marked to arrive
at your red ip address (usually a public ip from your pro
Hrm... This actually is working now. The problem had something to do with a
previous rule I was trying to use to allow only a single user access to
Twitter.com... This must be a NTLM authentication problem.
Still looking into this... any hints appreciated!
--Matt Ross
Ephrata School District
r@lists.sourceforge.net
Sent:
Wed, 30 Dec 2009 02:27:30 -0800
Subject: Re: [Efw-user] firewall rules are
hard to use
> Pedro,
>
> This is the right configuration for port forwarding to a LAN-client :
>
> Access from : any
> Target :
> Port :TCP 51413
> Translate to IP
Pedro,
This is the right configuration for port forwarding to a LAN-client :
Access from : any
Target :
Port :TCP 51413
Translate to IP 192.168.1.25 port 51413
"Access from : RED" does not work. I don't understand why. Do you ?
"Target : GREEN" or "Target : 192.168.1.25" does not work. I don
Hi
I disagree on you both about the new EFW firewall interface, I see it
much more complete and feature rich than the previous one. This new
interface has more advanced options that you may use and it reseable
best the iptables capabilities. In my opinion this is the way to go
and it will be the di
I share your opinion. I'm still using Endian 2.2 for this reason.
Now I'm checking Untangle, which is quite good also. It has the "easier
configuration"-version of Endian 2.2 when it comes to firewall, port
forwarding/NAT and QoS.
You need to adapt the interface of Untangle, but with the wiki and
HI
I wish there was a nice bug page for users setup. Becaus the eamil is so hard
to use and see responses etc.
But anyway I asked a while ago and witht his email system it so darn hard too
find out if therer was any answers. I find and have seen others too having
trouble getting things that u
24 matches
Mail list logo
