Marc Mertes <mer...@uni-bonn.de> wrote:
>> after a few years of useing shorewall now, I run into a "special case"
>> of a new masquerading need, and I´m not sure if this is possible.
>> I´ve already browsed through the mail archive - but there is not exactly
>
Am 04.04.2016 um 13:43 schrieb Florian Piekert:
> Am 04.04.2016 um 12:12 schrieb Marc Mertes:
>
> Hell Marc,
Hi Florian,
>
> your net behind your firewall (131.x.x.x) can be reached from the outside?
No all closed/droped - there are only some incomming rules, that allows
so
Hi Folks,
hi Tom,
after a few years of useing shorewall now, I run into a "special case"
of a new masquerading need, and I´m not sure if this is possible.
I´ve already browsed through the mail archive - but there is not exactly
my case discussed, just some where close to - or I didn´t understand
..
Any ideas how to stealth it?
To the actions.Drop and Reject files:
In /etc/shorewall I have no files like that right now, do you mean that
I should copy the files there
with the same name, that I have the .Drop and Reject files in
/etc/shorewall?
Greez Marc
Tom Eastep wrote:
Marc Mertes
Hey Guys,
I run Shorewall 3.4.2 on a Ubuntu 6.06 server machine.
My default policy is drop any,
my rules begin with drop any and end with drop any
After editing the files /usr/share/shorewall/action.Drop and Reject
I was able to steath Port 113.
But Port 1 (tcpmux) is still only closed.
Does
