Re: [leaf-user] Is shorewall configured by default to drop/rejectudp broadcasts?

2002-12-02 Thread Tom Eastep
--On Thursday, May 16, 2002 01:28:43 AM +0900 youngdo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi! Is shorewall configured by default to drop/reject udp broadcasts? No. * [2002/12/02 16:58:02, 0] nmbd/nmbd_become_dmb.c:become_domain_master_browser_bcast(291) become_domain_master_browser_bcast: A

Re: [leaf-user] Is shorewall configured by default to drop/rejectudp broadcasts?

2002-12-02 Thread Tom Eastep
--On Monday, December 02, 2002 01:30:55 PM -0500 Brad Fritz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Tue, 03 Dec 2002 02:56:52 +0900 youngdo wrote: > The above rule allows UDP port 137 packets from your firewall to the > local network. Is your local network 192.168.1.0/24? Are you seeing > any Shorewa

Re: [leaf-user] Is shorewall configured by default to drop/rejectudp broadcasts?

2002-12-02 Thread Tom Eastep
--On Monday, December 02, 2002 11:31:10 PM -0500 Kory Krofft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Try doing a search for the firewall in the windows "find a computer" option. My Bering - Samba server does not show up in the browse list. but works flawlessly. I have network drives mapped to it that recon

Re: [leaf-user] Is shorewall configured by default to drop/rejectudp broadcasts?

2002-12-03 Thread Tom Eastep
--On Tuesday, December 03, 2002 06:12:08 PM +0900 youngdo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: # iptables -nvL For future reference, "/sbin/shorewall status" is more useful. I've deleted all of the iptables output since my mailer is folding it but it showed that since you last restarted Shorewall,

Re: [leaf-user] Is shorewall configured by default to drop/rejectudp broadcasts?

2002-12-04 Thread Tom Eastep
--On Thursday, December 05, 2002 04:05:31 +0900 youngdo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: One final suggestion -- you might consider checking the rulesets again (either in this fashion or the one Tom suggested, though I don't know if I'll be able to interpret Shorewall-specific reports) after some