Re: [Shorewall-users] Shorewall Dump

Marcus Limosani wrote: Hi tom, I set things up as per your recommendation. I can browse the net from the internal network, and then applied the other rules as you indicated. I still get the FORWARD:REJECT response on traffic destined to the servers. I have attached the

Re: [Shorewall-users] Shorewall Dump

Tom Eastep wrote: Marcus Limosani wrote: Hi tom, I set things up as per your recommendation. I can browse the net from the internal network, and then applied the other rules as you indicated. I still get the FORWARD:REJECT response on traffic destined to the servers. I have

Re: [Shorewall-users] Shorewall Dump

Tom Eastep wrote: Tom Eastep wrote: Marcus Limosani wrote: Hi tom, I set things up as per your recommendation. I can browse the net from the internal network, and then applied the other rules as you indicated. I still get the FORWARD:REJECT response on traffic destined to the

Re: [Shorewall-users] fyi re: deprecation of ipset 'binding'

JC Janos wrote: Fyi, though possibly old news for you, http://markmail.org/message/2mvljuomcvm22zhe The binding feature is scheduled for removal in the next ipset release: the functionality can be replaced by the new set types. I think this may eventually affect the Docs at

[Shorewall-users] About my Firewall Settings - I would like an opinion

Hi, i would like to read opinions about my firewall settings: I am using Iptables with Shorewall (frontend) and my configuration is: - Default Policy: REJECT all connections. - Rules: Allow DNS (my DNS servers), allow http and https connections for servers: www.google.es, ... So, nobody

Re: [Shorewall-users] About my Firewall Settings - I would like an opinion

Manuel Gomez wrote: Hi, i would like to read opinions about my firewall settings: Please STOP CROSS-POSTING. -Tom -- Tom Eastep\ The ultimate result of shielding men from the Shoreline, \ effects of folly is to fill the world with fools. Washington, USA \

Re: [Shorewall-users] About my Firewall Settings - I would like an opinion

Sam Kuper escribió: 2008/11/10 Sam Kuper [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] By using REJECT instead of DROP, you have no stealth. This means you can be port-scanned to look for weaknesses, e.g. unpatched OpenSSH vulnerabilities, etc. That said, if SSH traffic is

Re: [Shorewall-users] About my Firewall Settings - I would like an opinion

Sam Kuper escribió: 2008/11/10 Sam Kuper [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] By using REJECT instead of DROP, you have no stealth. This means you can be port-scanned to look for weaknesses, e.g. unpatched OpenSSH vulnerabilities, etc. That said, if SSH traffic is

Re: [Shorewall-users] About my Firewall Settings - I would like an opinion

Sam Kuper escribió: 2008/11/10 Sam Kuper [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] By using REJECT instead of DROP, you have no stealth. This means you can be port-scanned to look for weaknesses, e.g. unpatched OpenSSH vulnerabilities, etc. That said, if SSH traffic is

Re: [Shorewall-users] NAT one to one problem

shorewall does not stop, do not responding. Does anything at all happen when you try to restart Shorewall? I'm not sure what is going on, but this doesn't sound like a Shorewall problem. - This SF.Net email is